HomeMy WebLinkAboutOMPAC Initial Study_MND_w_Appendices_compressed 9_8_23Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Orange Memorial
Park Aquatic Center Project,
South San Francisco, California
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 (PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT)
PREPARED FOR
City of South San Francisco
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK
AQUATIC CENTER PROJECT,
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94083 Attn: Phillip Vitale, Jr. Deputy Director of Capital Projects
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants 60 Stone Pine Road, Suite 100 Half Moon Bay, California 94019 (650) 440-4160www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 78620
September 8, 2023 (Public Review Draft)
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Proposed Building Characteristics ............................................................................................ 4
2.2 Site Access, Parking, and Vehicle Circulation .......................................................................... 4
2.3 Recreation and Landscaping ..................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Construction .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.6 Required Discretionary Approvals ............................................................................................ 9
3 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation .............................................................. 10
I. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 11
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................ 15
III. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 17
IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 23
V. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 28
VI. Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 31
VII. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 32
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 36
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 39
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 46
XI. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 52
XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 53
XIII. Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 54
XIV. Public Services ........................................................................................................................ 60
XV. Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 62
XVI. Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 63
XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 66
XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 69
XIX. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 74
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 76
4 References ........................................................................................................................................... 79
Appendices
Appendix A. CalEEMod - SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report
Appendix B. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project Appendix C. Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Trip Generation and VMT Assessment, Kittleson &
Associates, June 21, 2023
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii
Figures
Figure 1. Project location. ............................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Project vicinity and disturbance area. ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 3. Illustrative site plan. ...................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Landscaping plan with stormwater LID ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 5a. East side of existing Aquatic Center from parking lot. .............................................................. 12
Figure 5b. East entrance to existing Aquatic Center. .................................................................................. 12
Figure 5c. West side of existing Aquatic Center with playground. ............................................................ 12
Figure 5d. South side of existing Aquatic Center with soccer fields. ......................................................... 12
Figure 6. San Francisco International Airport, Airport Influence Areas. ................................................... 45
Tables
Table 1. Project Consistency with General Plan Policies ........................................................................... 14
Table 2. Estimated Construction Schedule, Equipment and Vehicle Trips ................................................ 20
Table 3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ................................. 21
Table 3. Noise Level Standards .................................................................................................................. 54
Table 4. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................................ 56
Table 5. Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................. 65
Table 6. Water Supply and Demand Estimates for Normal Water Years In Acre Feet (DWR Table 7-2) ........................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 7. CalWater Water Supply and Demand Estimates for Multiple Dry Years (DWR Table 7-4) ....... 72
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the Initial Study provides a description of the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project (proposed project) and describes the location, surrounding land uses, existing conditions, and project components.
1.1 Project Location
The City of South San Francisco (City) lies within San Mateo County in the San Francisco Bay Area. The City is located approximately 3 miles north of San Francisco International Airport and the City of San Bruno, just south of Daly City, Colma, and San Bruno Mountain, approximately 6 miles east of Pacifica, and west of the waters of San Francisco Bay.
The 6.5-acre project site (APN 014-041-160) is located at 1 West Orange Avenue in South San Francisco, California (Figure 1). The project site is located within the larger 26.9-acre Orange Memorial Park, the largest developed park within the City and managed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.
The project site is bounded by Tennis Drive to the north, W. Orange Avenue to the east, and Orange Memorial Park to the south and west (see Figure 1; Figure 2).
1.2 Existing Conditions
The Orange Memorial Pool Aquatic Center was constructed in 1970 and is the City’s only indoor municipal swimming pool. The existing 11,840-square foot, single-story, six-lane pool building is located
within the northeast portion of Orange Memorial Park. In addition to the Orange Pool, the 26.9-acre Orange Memorial Park contains the 21,600-square-foot Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, a community arts building, multiple soccer fields, five tennis courts, basketball courts, ball fields, bocce
ball courts, a skate park, two playgrounds, and picnic areas.
The primary parking lot for the Aquatic Center is located at the corner of Tennis Drive and W. Orange Avenue. This lot contains 22 vehicle parking spaces. A larger parking lot, which serves the Aquatic Center and various uses in Orange Memorial Park, is located northwest of the Aquatic Center, between Tennis Drive and Circle Court. This lot contains 144 vehicular spaces. In addition, an overflow parking lot with 55 vehicle parking spaces is located north of the Aquatic Center, across Tennis Drive.
The City recently completed construction of the Orange Memorial Park Stormwater Capture Project in the southern portion of the park. With this project, runoff will be captured by an instream diversion and pre-treatment structure (trash screen and sediment removal chamber) at the upper end of the Colma Creek flood control channel within the park. Pretreated water will then enter a diversion pipe leading to an underground stormwater storage reservoir. A portion of the storage facility will function as a cistern,
holding water for eventual non-potable irrigation use in the park and for water trucks, and the remainder will function as an infiltration chamber to recharge groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin. These storage facilities are being constructed underneath a portion of the existing baseball and softball
fields, which will be reconstructed in place as part of the stormwater capture project.
The ground surface across the park is relatively level, with elevations varying from about 25 to 29 feet above mean sea level.1
1 Ninyo & Moore, Geotechnical Evaluation, Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, 1 West Orange Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2
Figure 1. Project location.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3
Figure 2. Project vicinity and disturbance area.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes demolition of the existing Orange Memorial Pool facility, the associated parking lot, and a portion of the existing recreational grass soccer field area and the construction of a new aquatic center. The new center would contain separate indoor and outdoor pools and amenity space, the
relocated Eternal Flame sculpture into a new Veterans Memorial Plaza, a new parking lot with drop-off area, and associated walkways with new landscaping.
2.1 Proposed Building Characteristics
The project would demolish the existing 22-space parking lot and a portion of existing grass soccer fields in the northeast portion of Orange Memorial Park along W. Orange Avenue and construct a new 23,070-
square-foot aquatic center southeast of the existing Orange Memorial Pool. The facility would include a new building with an indoor pool and an attached outdoor pool. The single-story facility for the indoor pool would be approximately 30 feet in height and would contain an approximately 5,200-square foot,
seven-lane indoor pool with a surrounding 2,920-square-foot pool deck. The pool would contain a volume of 173,264 gallons. Separate men’s, women’s, and family locker/changing rooms and restroom areas, staff changing and restroom areas, approximately 400 square feet of office space, a 800-square-foot activity room, and lobby, storage, and mechanical space would also be constructed within the new center. An approximately 6,287-square-foot, 10-lane outdoor pool with a volume of 283,956 gallons would be constructed adjacent to the center and to the south. The outdoor pool would have a surrounding 3,240-square-foot pool deck, pool storage, and bleachers and would be fenced by 15-foot-tall composite wood fencing (Figure 3).
The proposed exterior materials for the aquatic center include painted cement plaster and composite wood cladding, with accent exterior glass detailing. The exterior materials palette primarily consists of a pre-finished “weathered steel” metal panel, composite wood cladding, and glazing. The proposed metal panel would be complementary to the color palette of the adjacent James A. Fernekes Building. In addition, the project would incorporate blue and aqua accent colors which are sprinkled throughout the building in the form of blue accent glazing, aqua colored cement plaster, and aqua colored signage. The exterior pool
metal fencing would be painted dark bronze.
2.2 Site Access, Parking, and Vehicle Circulation
The proposed project would construct the new aquatic center on the location of the existing 22-space parking lot. Once the new aquatic center is built, a new 13-space parking lot would be constructed in the location of the demolished pool, with access from Tennis Drive. Therefore, the project would shift the location of the existing Orange Pool parking lot and reduce the total vehicle parking spaces from 22 to 13 spaces for that primary lot. The 13 total spaces would include five Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)–accessible spaces, one ADA-accessible electric-vehicle (EV) space, and two EV spaces. Vehicle
ingress and egress into the parking lot would be provided from one-way driveways off Tennis Drive.
Implementation of the project would also include roadway and sidewalk frontage improvements along Tennis Drive and new traffic calming measures, including pedestrian crossing signs, speed humps and
new striping, would be installed on either side of the mid-block crosswalk. Eight bicycle racks would be installed for visitor use, and one interior bicycle rack would be available for staff use.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5
Figure 3. Illustrative site plan.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6
2.3 Recreation and Landscaping
The project would remove a portion of the existing soccer field area, reducing the total area of grass field by about 7,200 square feet. The remaining grass field would be temporarily fenced off and used for construction staging and parking during project construction but would be returned to existing conditions
and improved for recreational use post-project, including soccer practices and games.
The project would remove approximately 34 existing trees on-site that are concentrated within the location of the new aquatic center. Approximately 35 replacement trees of a variety of species would be
replanted throughout the site (Figure 4). The project would renovate and relocate the large Eternal Flame sculpture to a newly created Veterans Memorial Plaza adjacent to the pedestrian walkway from the new parking lot to the aquatic center. The plaza would also include seating, accent lighting, relocated Veterans Memorial plaques, and a flagpole.
In addition to planting 35 trees, other landscaping elements would include low-water shrubs and grasses (including coffeeberry, manzanita, lavender, fescue, and deergrass). Replacement Canary Island date palms would be planted along Tennis Drive.
Three planting areas would be added on-site for stormwater retention and treatment and planted with stormwater treatment grasses (California grey rush [Juncus patens] and Canyon prince wild rye [Leymus
condensatus]) (see Figure 4). These areas would encompass approximately 1,855 square feet of Low Impact Development (LID) treatment areas. Stormwater would be routed through the LID stormwater treatment areas, and excess stormwater would be directed to the stormwater system in W. Orange Avenue.
2.4 Utilities
The project would replace and add new wastewater, water, and stormwater drainage throughout the project site. A new 4-inch lateral and water meter connected to the water main on W. Orange Avenue would be installed for potable and irrigation water supply. A new 6-inch water line and hydrant connected to the main on W. Orange Avenue would run from W. Orange Avenue down Tennis Drive and be installed adjacent to Tennis Drive at the northwest corner of the pool building. A new 8-inch sanitary
sewer would connect to the existing sanitary sewer line located at the southern end of the soccer fields, west of W. Orange Avenue.
Four- to 16-inch stormwater drainage pipelines would be routed throughout the project site and overflow lines would connect to the stormwater pipeline within W. Orange Avenue.
New electrical and communications lines would connect to existing vaults for the new building. Existing electrical and communications lines would remain until demolition of the old pool building. Existing gas
line infrastructure would be removed.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7
Figure 4. Landscaping plan with stormwater LID
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8
2.5 Construction
Project construction is expected to begin in early 2024 and occur over a period of approximately 18 months. In addition to the area of project disturbance shown in Figure 2, the entirety of the recreational fields extending southwest from the disturbance area would be fenced off from park use and available for
possible temporary construction parking and staging use. This staging area would extend to, but not include, W. Orange Avenue, Colma Creek, the basketball courts, Joseph A. Fernekes Building, and the adjacent playground. All or part of the construction staging area would be used to temporarily accommodate equipment and vehicle parking and materials storage. No ground disturbance would occur in the staging area. Before project completion, the grass and irrigation system would be repaired and replaced, and the recreational field returned to its existing condition. Construction activities would be
phased as follows:
1. The site would be fenced, prepared and cleared in the vicinity of the easternmost parking lot and sports field area. The existing parking lot would be demolished and regraded. Trenching for new utilities would occur. Site grading activities would include raising the existing grade of the building footprint in areas within the designated floodplain to elevate the new structure out of the floodplain area.
2. The new aquatic center would be constructed, including utilities, sidewalks, and pathways necessary for access. The existing aquatic center would remain operational while the new facility is constructed.
3. Once the new pool building is operational, the existing pool building would be demolished and all old utility infrastructure removed. Demolition of the existing aquatic center would occur over a 3-month period. The site would be filled in and regraded for the new parking lot.
4. The new parking lot and Veterans Memorial plaza, with associated walkways, sidewalks, and lighting, would be constructed. The Eternal Flame sculpture would be relocated. Traffic calming
measures on Tennis Drive would be installed, along with street and sidewalk improvements.
5. Construction activities would conclude with landscaping and final site work, including storm drainage, irrigation facilities, and rehabilitation of the staging area.
Grading would include over-excavation of the pools and building foundations by approximately 2 to 3 feet, followed by laying rock and Geotech fabric for stability. Engineered fill, which could include up to 10 percent of native soils, would be added over the Geotech fabric and compacted prior to pouring concrete.
Project construction would require approximately 9,700 cubic yards of soil to be removed from excavation for foundations, pools, and geotechnical improvements. The excavated soil would be analyzed, and if it is acceptable, approximately ten percent (970 CY) would be reused as fill and the remaining 8,730 CY would be hauled off. If the soil is not acceptable as engineered fill, then the entire 9,700 CY would be hauled off and approximately 970 CY would be imported for fill in addition to the importation of engineered fill. Fill would be required on-site to fill the existing pool excavation, level the surface and underly the parking lot, and to build up parts of the building footprint so the grade is above the flood zone where necessary. In addition to off hauling soils, demolition of the existing building and hardscape will generate approximately 800 cubic yards of debris which would be off-hauled for recycling or disposal. Thirty-four trees would also be removed and chipped. The estimated maximum depth of
excavation is anticipated to be approximately 12 feet below ground surface for both the pools and new utilities. The project would reduce the pervious surface area from 56,925 square feet to 39,710 square feet and increase the impervious surface area by 17,215 square feet to 55,800 square feet.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
9
Existing site materials would be recycled or reused following demolition, when feasible. Various recycled materials would be used in construction, and durable, long-lasting exterior finish materials would be
incorporated throughout the project. Standard construction equipment, including excavators, graders, tractors, loaders, and pavers, would be used during project construction. No pile driving is proposed.
Construction would take approximately 18 months to complete. Construction hours would be limited to
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Activities may occur between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays, but such activities would be limited to quiet activities and would not involve engine-driven machinery. Although the City allows construction from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays, weekend construction is not anticipated and would require permission from the City.
Access for construction would be from a temporary access gate on W. Orange Avenue. Construction staging and materials staging would occur on-site, including the adjacent soccer fields. All work would comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management.
Existing site materials would be recycled or reused following demolition, when feasible. Demolished asphalt and concrete would be taken to an asphalt recycling facility.
2.6 Required Discretionary Approvals
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) provides environmental information and analysis in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is necessary for City decision makers to be able to adequately consider the effects of the project. The City, as the CEQA lead agency, has approval authority and responsibility for considering the environmental effects of the project as a whole. The City is responsible for authorizing and approving the project.
The project is requesting approval of the following permits:
• Design Review permit
• Certification of CEQA document
• City Building permit and Youth, Parks and Community Enrichment approval
• Grading permit
• Tree removal permit
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The proposed project could have a "Potentially Significant Impact" for environmental factors checked
below. Please refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to either reduce these impacts to less than significant levels or require further study.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 will be 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 “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact 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 measure based on the earlier analysis as described on 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.
Date: September 9, 2023 Signed:
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11
I. Aesthetics
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☒ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant. A scenic vista generally provides focal views of objects, settings, or features of visual interest, or panoramic views of large geographic areas of scenic quality, from a fixed vantage point or linear corridor, such as a roadway or trail. A significant impact would occur if a project introduced incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views
of an existing scenic vista.
The project site is located in the northwest portion of the existing Orange Memorial Park on Tennis Drive and W. Orange Avenue. It is surrounded by residential areas to the north and east, and park facilities to
the west and south. The project site currently contains an aquatic center with swimming pool, parking areas, and soccer fields (see Figures 5a-5d). The existing aquatic center was built in 1970. There are no designated scenic vistas visible from the project site, and the surrounding vicinity does not contain any designated historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or scenic highways. The nearest designated scenic highway is Interstate Route 280, which is located approximately 1.3 miles west of the project site (Caltrans 2023). Sign Hill, approximately 0.57 mile northeast of the site, is one of the most prominent features visible from Orange Memorial Park. Sign Hill includes 65 acres of open space and almost 2 miles of hiking trails with views of the San Francisco Bay (South San Francisco Parks Division 2023a). The project site is visible from several viewing points on Sign Hill, as well as from neighborhoods on West W. Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive and surrounding public streets. The project site is also visible from areas in Orange Memorial Park, including the soccer fields, tennis courts, and playground, and is visible in the distance from the Centennial Way bicycle and pedestrian trail, which is approximately 1,000 feet to the southwest.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12
Figure 5a. East side of existing Aquatic Center from parking
lot.
Figure 5b. East entrance to existing Aquatic Center.
Figure 5c. West side of existing Aquatic Center with
playground.
Figure 5d. South side of existing Aquatic Center with soccer
fields.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
13
The proposed project would replace an existing indoor pool and a portion of the grass recreation (soccer) fields with a new complex of two pools, one indoor and one outdoor, with ancillary facilities including
changing rooms and restrooms. The project would also replace the existing parking lot with a new, smaller parking lot and would plant 35 trees surrounding the pool facilities and new parking area (Figures 5a-d). The new pool building would be approximately 30 feet in height.
Due to the topography of the project site and relative lack of buildings on the site compared with the surrounding urban development, view changes would typically occur at limited vantage points, as opposed to along extensive roadway segments or from entire large geographic areas. Furthermore, the new pool building would be one story and approximately 30 feet in height and integrate with the surrounding urban development along Tennis Drive and W. Orange Avenue and the park setting of Orange Memorial Park. The project would remove approximately 34 existing trees and would replant approximately 35 trees throughout the project site. Thus, while the project would alter the existing visual character of the project site, it would replace the existing pool and parking lot with similar updated facilities including trees and landscaping, therefore the project would not adversely affect a scenic vista or obstruct views of visual resources and this impact would be less than significant.
While the project site could be visible within panoramic views from Sign Hill, the project site contributes to the existing urban setting of the area and would not be especially discernible among the surrounding urban development. Therefore, implementation of the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant.
Construction impacts would include excavation, grading, and ground disturbance; heavy equipment operation and staging areas for equipment parking and material storage; and additional truck traffic on haul routes. Construction would last approximately 18 months; therefore, short-term visual impacts due to
construction would be temporary and less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
No Impact. The project site is not within a scenic highway corridor. The nearest designated scenic highway is Interstate Route 280, approximately 1.3 miles west of the project area. The project area does not have other scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or historic buildings (South San Francisco 2022a). Although the project would remove approximately 34 existing trees, it would replant approximately 35 trees surrounding the pool buildings and facilities. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including those within a designated scenic highway. No impact would occur.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant. The project is located in an existing City park that has a zoning designation of
Parks and Recreation (PR) and a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks and Recreation. The project would replace an existing public pool facility and a portion of existing soccer fields with a new public pool complex. Therefore, it would not conflict with applicable zoning.
The existing building’s age and heavy use have resulted in very worn condition of the shell and interior. Goal LU-10 of the 2040 General Plan identifies a goal of a high level of quality in the architecture and
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14
site design of new construction. The exterior materials for the new aquatic center include pre-finished “weathered steel” metal pane, painted cement plaster and composite wood cladding, with accent exterior
glass detailing. The exterior materials palette primarily consists of a pre-finished “weathered steel” metal panel, composite wood cladding, and glazing. The proposed metal panel would be complementary to the color palette of the adjacent Fernekes Building. In addition, the project would incorporate blue and aqua accent colors sprinkled throughout the building in the form of blue accent glazing, aqua colored cement plaster, and aqua colored signage.
The South San Francisco 2040 General Plan does not include a visual element; however, there are visual and architectural guidelines under Chapter 5, Land Use and Community Design Element. Table 1 compares the project’s consistency with General Plan policies.
Table 1. Project Consistency with General Plan Policies
General Plan Policy Consistency
Policy LU-8.4: Require street trees. Require new development to add street trees along streets and public spaces that provide shade, attractive landscaping, and contribute positively towards public health outcomes and climate mitigation and adaptation.
Consistent. The project would plant 35 trees, including new street trees along W. Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive.
Policy LU-8.8: Maintain and protect public views. Maintain and protect unique public views of the city, the bay, and local landmarks from major thoroughfares and hillside open spaces.
Consistent. The project would not impact public views. New recreational facilities at Orange Memorial Park would integrate and harmonize with the surrounding urban development and would not be distinguishable from Sign Hill.
Policy LU-9.2: Encourage architectural and visual interest in new development. Encourage distinctive architecture and elements that add visual interest to buildings to enhance people’s perceptions of South San Francisco as an interesting and inviting place.
Consistent. The project would replace an aging pool facility with a new pool complex. The new pool complex would be constructed of metal panels, painted cement plaster, and composite wood cladding, in colors that complement the Fernekes Building, with exterior accents of aqua and blue in glazing, cement plaster and signage, and would be visually appealing.
Policy LU-9.3: Require quality building materials. Require high-quality, long-lasting building materials on all new development projects in the city.
Consistent. The project includes quality building materials, glazing, and infrastructure.
Policy LU-9.4: Require walkable and inviting buildings and spaces. Require building design that creates walkable and inviting spaces, such as locating parking behind buildings, allowing for outdoor plazas and dining, and locating building frontages in close proximity to the sidewalk edge, where appropriate.
Consistent. The new facilities would be integrated in the park design and easily accessible both from the park and from Tennis Drive. The project would reduce the overall number of parking spaces but would provide more ADA parking close to the building.
As shown in Table 1, the project would be consistent with all General Plan policies related to visual and
aesthetic impacts. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and this impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant. The project would include street and access lighting as required by the City, and would meet all requirements of the City Zoning Code and applicable building codes. As required by
Section 20.3000.009 of the municipal code, all lighting fixtures would be fully shielded and located to avoid light spillover to adjacent properties. Further, light fixtures would not exceed 25 feet in height, and any light fixture located within 50 feet of a residence or public right-of-way would be further shielded to minimize light trespass onto adjacent properties.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15
Proposed window and selective door glazing would be tempered with a spectrally selective coasting to provide the highest visible transmittance, lowest shading coefficient, and high ultraviolet (UV) radiation
blockage, therefore, the glass would not be highly reflective. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and this impact would be less than significant.
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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. 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:
(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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(c) 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 Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(e) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project is located in the City of South San Francisco in Orange Memorial Park, an urban park, and surrounded by residential and commercial development. There is no agricultural or forest land in the vicinity of the project. Historically, the project vicinity supported several greenhouses used by the carnation-growing company Mazzanti Carnations, Inc., but operations ceased in 1996 when the land was purchased by the City for the expansion of park facilities (City of South San Francisco 2007; 2023a). The project site has a land use designation of Parks and Recreation in the City’s General Plan (City of South San Francisco 2022a). The areas surrounding Orange Memorial Park are designated as High, Medium, or
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
16
Low Density Residential; no parcels within the project vicinity are zoned for agricultural use (City of South San Francisco 2023b). No impacts to important farmland would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The proposed project is located in a City park and is not under Williamson Act contract. The surrounding area is not zoned for agricultural use or under Williamson Act contract. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts and no impact would occur.
c) Would the project 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 Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The proposed project is located in a City park and is not zoned for timberland or timberland production. There project vicinity is urban, and there are no areas zoned for timber or timber production in the City (City of South San Francisco 2023b, 2023c). No impact to timberland would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. There is no forest land in the vicinity of the project (City of South San Francisco 2023b, 2023c). No impact would occur.
e) Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project is located in a City park and the surrounding area includes urban uses. There is no farmland or forest land in the vicinity of the project. The project would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land. No impact would occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17
III. Air Quality
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
The proposed project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which consists of the entirety of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties; the western portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County. The Air
Basin is characterized by complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays. The regional climate of the Air Basin is characterized by mildly dry summers and moderately wet winters. The region experiences moderate humidity with wind patterns consisting of mild onshore breezes during the day. The location of a strong subtropical high-pressure cell located in the Pacific Ocean induces foggy mornings and moderate temperatures during the summer, as well as occasional rainstorms during the winter. The air pollutants for which national and state standards have been promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Bay Area include ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter, including dust, 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) and 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are of concern in the Bay Area. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below:
• Ozone is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX—both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are conducive to its formation. Its effects can cause irritated respiratory system, reduced lung function, breathing pattern changes, reduced breathing capacity, inflamed and damaged cells that line the lungs, lungs to be more susceptible to infection, permanent lung damage, some immunological changes, increased mortality risk, and vegetation and property damage and aggravate asthma and other chronic lung diseases.
• CO is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings, with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines—unlike ozone—and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Bay Area, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Potential health effects from CO
range depending on exposure: slight headaches, nausea, aggravation of angina pectoris (chest
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18
pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease, decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease, impairment of central nervous system functions,
possible increased risk to fetuses, and death.
• PM10 and PM2.5 consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and
2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring. However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and
construction activities. Health effects from short-term exposure (hours per days) can include the following: irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat; coughing; phlegm; chest tightness; shortness of breath; aggravation of existing lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis; and
those affected with heart disease can suffer heart attacks and arrhythmias. Health effects from long-term exposure can include the following: reduced lung function, chronic bronchitis, changes in lung morphology, and death.
• TACs refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a toxic air
contaminant that is emitted from construction equipment and diesel-fueled vehicles and trucks. Some short-term (acute) effects of DPM exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation; coughs; headaches; light-headedness; and nausea. Studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Human studies on the carcinogenicity of DPM demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer, although the increased risk cannot be clearly
attributed to diesel exhaust exposure.
Other pollutants that are regulated but not considered an issue in the project area are sulfur dioxide, vinyl chloride, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and lead; the proposed project would not emit substantial quantities of those pollutants, so they are not discussed further in this section.
Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The applicable air quality plan is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan), which was adopted on April 19, 2017. The Clean Air Plan defines control strategies to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the climate. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures, Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures,
Waste Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super‐Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Pollutants Measures.
There are two categories of control measures that are applicable to the project – Transportation Control Measures and Waste Management Control Measures. The remainder do not apply to the project. The proposed project’s compliance with these control strategies is discussed under III (b) below.
Transportation Control Measures. The BAAQMD identifies Transportation Measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit service, decarbonizing
transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment.
Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable BAAQMD rules and requirements. The BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines were developed to assist local
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19
jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. The screening criteria established by the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds and
Guidelines dated April 2022 have been relied upon to make the following significance determinations.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The 2017 Clean Air Plan is the current applicable regional Air Quality Plan (AQP) for the Air Basin (BAAQMD 2017). The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to protect public health and protect the climate, and the plan acknowledges that the BAAQMD’s two stated goals of protection are closely related. As such, the 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies a wide range of control measures intended to decrease both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because the proposed project does not involve population or employment growth, determining consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan involves assessing whether applicable control measures contained in the 2017 Clean Air Plan are implemented and whether implementation of the proposed project would disrupt or hinder implementation of AQP control measures. The control measures are organized into five categories: (1) stationary and area source control measures; (2) mobile source measures; (3) transportation control measures; (4) land use and local impact measures; and (5) energy and climate measures. The control
measures are geared toward traditional land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial uses) and buildings. All projects within BAAQMD’s jurisdiction are required to implement the BAAQMD BMPs during construction activities. As discussed in III (b), below, the proposed project would implement all
required BMPs for construction activities and would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQP. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include any special features that would disrupt or hinder implementation of the AQP control measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct
implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant. The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance represent the allowable emissions a project can generate without generating a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. Therefore, a project that would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance on a project level also would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to these regional air quality impacts. The region is non-attainment for the federal and state ozone standards, state PM10 standards, and federal and state PM2.5 standards. Impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed project are addressed separately below.
CONSTRUCTION
Emissions from construction-related activities are generally short term in duration but may still cause adverse air quality impacts. The proposed project would generate emissions from construction equipment
exhaust, worker travel, and fugitive dust. These construction emissions include criteria air pollutants and precursors from the operation of heavy construction equipment. As discussed below, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed any significance threshold adopted for this project.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant contribution to cumulative impacts during construction.
For all proposed projects, the BAAQMD recommends the implementation of BMPs, whether or not
construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds of significance. As such, to ensure construction emission impacts are less than significant, the proposed project would apply the following BAAQMD BMPs during construction activities at the proposed project site:
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20
• Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered with non-potable water two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure in Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within
48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Construction emissions associated with the proposed project, including emissions associated with the operation of off-road equipment, haul-truck trips, on-road worker vehicle trips, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and fugitive dust from material handling activities, were calculated using the current California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operation of a variety of land use projects. Emissions modeling included emissions generated during the following project phases: demolition (including demolition of the existing parking lot and pool building and removal of old utilities), site preparation (including grading and grubbing, and utility trenching), building construction (including construction of pool building, outdoor pool, parking lot, paths and sidewalks, street improvements), and architecture coating. Based on applicant-provided information, it is expected that construction activities associated
with the proposed project would last 18 months. Table 2 shows the construction schedule, off-road construction equipment, worker and vendor trips, and on-site haul truck trips used to estimate emissions. Table 3 shows estimated air pollutant emissions. The exhaust emissions generated by construction
equipment are based on the hours of operation, horsepower, and load factors of the equipment for which CalEEMod defaults were utilized. The detailed assumptions and calculations, as well as CalEEMod outputs, are provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report (SWCA 2023) prepared
for the project, which is included in Appendix A.
Table 2. Estimated Construction Schedule, Equipment and Vehicle Trips
Phase Construction
Schedule
Construction Equipment Number of
Workers
Haul, Vendor &
Onsite truck trips/day
Demolition of Parking lot January 2024
20 work days
Tractors/loaders/backhoes
Rubber tired dozers
Concrete/Industrial saws
30 11
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21
Phase Construction Schedule Construction Equipment Number of Workers Haul, Vendor & Onsite truck trips/day
Site preparation Jan-Feb 2024
23 work days
Graders
Rubber-tired dozers
Tractors/loaders/backhoes
30 7
Grading March-April 2024
43 work days
Graders
Rubber-tired dozers
Tractors/loaders/backhoes
30 7
Building Construction May 2024-Jan 2025
200 work days
Cranes
Forklifts
Generators
Tractors/loaders/backhoes
Welders
30 9
Demolition of Center Feb-April 2025
64 work days
Tractors/loaders/backhoes
Rubber tired dozers
Concrete/Industrial saws
30 23
Paving and Landscaping May-June 2025
40 work days
Tractors/loaders/backhoes
Pavers
Paving equipment
Rollers
Cement and mortar mixers
20 3
Architectural coating June 2025
21 work days
Air compressors 10 0
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.14 (see Appendix C); BAAQMD (2022)
Table 3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 Fugitive Dust
Pounds per Day
Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) 12.5 16.6 8.74 3.64 0.04
Construction Emissions (Mitigated) 12.5 16.6 4.37 1.45 0.04
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 N/A BMPs
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.14 (see Appendix C); BAAQMD (2022)
OPERATION
Long-term air pollutant emissions from operation of the new pool complex would primarily be those associated with mobile sources s (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity – the project would not include natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the proposed project. Vehicles traveling on paved roadways result in PM10 emissions from vehicle exhaust, tire and break wear, and dust thrown into the atmosphere. Energy source emissions from building mechanical systems such as pool filters and disinfection systems, lighting, heating and cooling, and plug-in electronics such as computers. Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include
emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22
Transportation Control Measures. The proposed project would replace an existing parking lot and pool building in Orange Memorial Park with a new pool facility and parking lot. Although the proposed
project would result in a net increase in the number of vehicle trips due to increased pool programs, it would result in a net decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by expanding pool services and programs to serve South San Francisco residents so those residents would not have to travel to facilities in other cities (see Section 3.XVI, Transportation). The new pool facility would be located near residential areas and on a transit line, and would include bicycle parking facilities, which would help to reduce the demand for travel by single occupancy vehicles. Therefore, the project would promote BAAQMD initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and this impact would be consistent with the Transportation Control Measures.
Waste Management Control Measures. The project would comply with local requirements for waste management (e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.
The project would replace an aquatic center built in 1970. The project would remove existing natural gas infrastructure. The new facility would be all-electric, using no natural gas, which would reduce energy source emissions compared to the existing aquatic center. Although the project would increase pool
capacity from one to two pools, and from six to 17 lanes, the new building and systems would be more energy efficient and would include rooftop solar panels to further defray energy source emissions. Electricity for South San Francisco is purchased from Peninsula Clean Energy, which purchases energy
from renewable sources, minimizing energy source emissions (City of South San Francisco 2023d). The use of landscape maintenance equipment would not change appreciably over existing conditions. Architectural coatings would meet all applicable standards for air emissions. Therefore, the proposed
project would have a less-than-significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts during operation.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant. The BAAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be any facility or land use that includes members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. The project is located in a public park surrounded by residential areas. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2022) recommends assessment of risks and hazards on sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project. Existing sensitive receptors within this radius include residences on Tennis Drive, Circle Court, Amberwood Court, Idlewood Drive, Idlewood Court, Mahogany Drive, Bay Court, Railroad Avenue, Commercial Avenue, 1st Lane, 2nd Lane, 3rd Lane, Baden Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, W. Orange Avenue, Mayfair Avenue, Toyon Avenue, Mulberry Avenue, and Myrtle Avenue, as well as recreational users of Orange Memorial Park facilities including the Joseph A. Fernekes Building, playing fields, outdoor tennis courts, the skate park, and play structures. Short-term (18 months) construction activities could result in temporary
increases in pollutant concentrations. The limited duration and limited quantities of construction emissions ensure that no individual receptor would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. During construction, the BAAQMD BMPs would minimize construction impacts by reducing dust and
exhaust emissions. Therefore, construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operations of the pool complex as a result of the project would not change appreciably. As discussed
above, the new pool complex would be more efficient in energy use, reducing operational emissions. Emissions from transportation would increase in the immediate vicinity due to an increase in the number of vehicle trips; however, it is likely that City residents are currently using pools in other jurisdictions that
are further away. Expanding the Orange Pool facilities would provide additional classes and opportunities
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23
for recreational swimmers closer to the city to better meet the demand from City residents. Therefore, the overall air emissions generated by traffic would decrease, as the project would cause a decrease in VMT
by shortening vehicle trips for residents of South San Francisco. The project would also provide three EV charging stations in the new parking lot, promoting the use of electric vehicles. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant. The BAAQMD defines a significant impact related to odors as more than five confirmed odor complaints per year averaged over the past three years (BAAQMD 2022). The proposed project would include the use of pool chemicals; however, any localized odors associated with pool operation would be confined mainly to the project site and would readily dissipate. As such, operation of the proposed project is not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. During construction, a limited number of diesel engines would be operated on the project site for limited durations. Diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from these diesel engines would be emitted during construction of the proposed project, which are objectionable to some; however,
the duration of construction activities is expected to last approximately 18 months, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site, and diesel exhaust odors would be consistent with existing vehicle odors in the area. Considering this information, construction and operation of the proposed project would
not create other emissions or odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people; impacts would be less than significant.
IV. Biological Resources
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project site includes 6.5 acres of the northeastern portion of Orange Memorial Park and encompasses the existing Orange Pool, a parking lot, and some of the existing soccer fields (see Figure 2 in Chapter 1, Project Description). In addition, the project would include the use of additional soccer fields as a staging and parking area. Located in an urbanized area, the project site is surrounded by
residential areas and City park facilities. Colma Creek, approximately 400 feet southwest of the project disturbance area, and approximately 40 feet southwest of the staging and parking area, is a perennial creek that flows to San Francisco Bay and consists of a vertical and trapezoidal-shaped concrete drainage
with concrete channel walls and bed.
The project topography is primarily level, with elevations from 24 to 29 feet above mean sea level. The current landscape is dominated by the existing aquatic center and associated parking lot, a large
soccer field to the southwest, a playground to the east, and scattered ornamental trees throughout the site.
The project does not include habitat for a candidate, sensitive or special-status species in local or regional plans, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish or Wildlife Service;
therefore, the project would not have a substantial effect on sensitive species either directly through habitat modification, and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project is located in a City park. Colma Creek nearest the project site is a concrete lined channel with no vegetation. According to the Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Element of the City’s 2040 General Plan, there is no riparian or other sensitive habitat identified on or in the vicinity of the project site (City of South San Francisco 2022a). Therefore, the project would not 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact would occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project is located in a City park and there are no existing wetlands or waterbodies on the project site. The nearest water body is Colma Creek, approximately 400
feet to the southwest of the disturbance area, and 40 feet southwest of the temporary staging area. Colma Creek, in the vicinity of the project, has recently been modified for flood control management. The bottom and sides of the channel are lined with concrete. The City’s stormwater system discharges to Colma Creek and then to San Francisco Bay. Standard conditions of approval for all projects in the City include all stormwater quality BMPs required by the San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) (see Section 3.X, Hydrology and Water Quality). All construction activities would be required to implement BMPs to comply with the SMCWPPP, which would prevent sediment-laden runoff and/or pollutants from leaving the site or impacting Colma Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require management of exposed soils and vehicle fueling and maintenance, would further reduce these less-than-significant impacts.
Excavation for the project would occur in the northeastern corner of Orange Memorial Park. Stormwater runoff from excavation and construction activities could impact water quality in Colma Creek if it were allowed to discharge to the stormwater system. Standard conditions of approval for all construction projects in the City include all stormwater quality BMPs required by the SMCWPPP (see Section 3.X,
Hydrology and Water Quality). All construction activities would be required to implement BMPs to comply with the SMCWPPP, which would prevent sediment-laden runoff and/or pollutants from entering the stormwater system or Colma Creek. Implementation of BMPs required by the SMCWPPP would
prevent contaminated stormwater runoff from discharging to Colma Creek. Therefore, impacts to state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), including Colma Creek, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, would be less
than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require management of exposed soils and vehicle fueling and maintenance, would further reduce these less-than-significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1:
The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to stormwater drainages and Colma Creek in the vicinity of the project:
a. All spoils, such as dirt, excavated material, debris, and construction-related materials, generated during project activities shall be placed where they cannot enter any drainage ditch or culvert inlet. Spoils shall be covered or secured to prevent sediment from escaping. Once the spoil pile is no longer active, it shall be removed from the work area and disposed of lawfully at an
appropriate facility.
b. All exposed soils in the work area resulting from project activities shall be stabilized immediately following the completion of work to prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control BMPs, such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel or rock-lined drainages, water check bars, and broadcast straw, can be used. BMPs shall be made of certified weed-free materials. Straw wattles, if used, shall be made of biodegradable fabric (e.g., burlap) and free of monofilament netting. At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter any drainages or other sensitive areas.
c. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet from any drainages and other water features. Prior to the onset of work, the construction contractor shall prepare a plan to be approved by the City before construction begins to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26
d. Before completion of the project, all exposed or disturbed surfaces shall be permanently protected from erosion with reseeding and landscaping.
e. All exposed surfaces shall be wetted periodically to prevent significant dust.
f. All stockpiled soil shall be covered during periods of rain.
d) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Due to the fragmentation, development, and high level of disturbance and human activity in the project area, it is not anticipated that the project would adversely affect a wildlife movement corridor. The public park, with scattered trees and grass soccer fields, is unlikely to provide migration habitat for wildlife. The BMPs required under the SMCWPPP would protect the stormwater system and Colma Creek from project runoff. The surrounding area includes urban development and would not include any wildlife corridors. Operation of the project would not change from existing conditions. Therefore, the project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife. As a result, there would be no impacts to migration and wildlife corridors.
The project site may contain suitable nesting and foraging habitat for avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 and 3513. Trees and shrubs on the project site may provide nesting habitat for migratory birds, but are unlikely to provide
habitat for raptors due to the high public use rates of the park.
The project has the potential to impact potential eggs or young of avian species covered under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Potential nesting sites for migratory birds could be removed through
removal of 34 trees on the project site; however, ornamental trees in the nearby surrounding park, and trees in residential neighborhoods could provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat and would remain undisturbed by project construction. If work occurs during bird nesting season, implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which requires nesting bird surveys and construction modifications if active nests are identified, would ensure that potentially significant impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2:
The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to nesting birds, as required by the MBTA:
a. If project activities, including, but not limited to, tree removal or pruning, grubbing and grading, are conducted during nesting bird season (February 15 to September 15), preconstruction nest surveys shall be conducted in and near the project (within 500 feet for large raptors and 300 feet for all other birds) by a qualified biologist within 7 days of the start of construction. If nesting birds are identified during the preconstruction survey, then the project shall be modified (i.e., a
no-work exclusion buffer of appropriate size [to be determined by the qualified project biologist] shall be erected around active nests) and/or delayed as necessary to avoid impacts to the identified nests, eggs, and/or young. Disturbing active nests must be avoided until young birds
have fledged.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant. The City’s 2040 General Plan’s Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Element includes policies to protect existing trees, expand the tree canopy cover, and enforce the Tree Preservation Ordinance (City of South San Francisco 2023e). Under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, protected
trees may not be removed or pruned back by more than a third without a permit. Protected trees include the following:
• Any tree of the following species with a circumference of 75 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade
o Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
o Black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)
o Myoporum (Myoporum laetum)
o Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
o Glossy privet (Lingustrum lucidum)
o Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra)
• Any heritage tree of the following species with a circumference of 30 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade
o California bay (Umbellaria californica)
o Oak (Quercus spp.)
o Cedar (Cedrus spp.)
o California buckeye (Aesculus californica)
o Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus var. asplenifolius)
o Strawberry tree (Arbutus spp.)
o Mayten (Maytenus boaria)
o Little Gem dwarf southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem')
• Any tree other than the species listed above with a circumference of 48 inches or more when
measured 54 inches above natural grade
• A tree or stand of trees so designated based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to
the public due to its unusual appearance, location, or historical significance
• A stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival (City of South San Francisco 2023e)
The project would remove 34 existing trees, none of which are heritage trees (Rizzoli 2023). Further, the project would plant 35 new trees to expand the City’s tree canopy cover in compliance with the
Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Element of the City’s 2040 General Plan. New trees would include evergreen canopy trees such as Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California pepper (Schinus molle), and stone pine (Pinus pinea), as well as deciduous canopy trees such as London plane tree (Platanus acerfolia ‘Columbia’), and, along Tennis Avenue, Canary Island date (Phoenix canariensis). Since the project would not remove any heritage trees and would replace the tree canopy by planting 35 trees, no impacts to heritage trees would occur.
Policy CP-7.2 in the 2040 General Plan prioritizes expansion of the canopy cover to increase environmental benefits; including sequestering carbon dioxide, mitigating the urban heat island, improving air quality, providing traffic calming, and reducing energy use. The project would remove 34
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28
trees and replace them with 35 new trees. Therefore, although the project would remove trees, it would over time replace the lost canopy cover as the new trees mature. The project would not remove or prune
any heritage trees and would replace removed trees, therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as general plan policies, tree preservation policy or ordinance, therefore the impact would be less than significant.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, that apply to the project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
V. Cultural Resources
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
The analysis is based on a cultural resources investigation and technical report prepared by SWCA architectural historians and archaeologists that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualification Standards (Appendix B). The cultural resources inventory included a California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) database, a buried
site sensitivity analysis, a review of historic aerials and relevant literature, and an intensive pedestrian survey for archaeological and historical resources.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. The investigation for the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum identified one previously recorded historical resource on the project site. In addition, SWCA performed a field visit,
walked the project area, and documented the architectural features of the existing pool building.
The railroad tracks on Railroad Avenue that were a part of the Southern Pacific Junction known as CA-SMH-357 (P-41-000497) have been previously removed. The section of Railroad Avenue from Memorial Park to Spruce Avenue has been completely removed. Beyond Spruce Avenue, the rail bed continues without tracks, paralleling Railroad Avenue. This alignment has been completely redeveloped
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29
in some sections, with ties, rails, and other components of the former structure removed in others. The former resource does not retain sufficient integrity to convey significance. No other cultural
resources—archaeological or historical—are known to exist within the project area or its vicinity.
The project area is mostly covered in turf grasses with concrete, asphalt, trees, and shrubs. Orange Pool, located at Orange Memorial Park in central South San Francisco, was constructed in 1970 and is a Mid-
Century Modern natatorium (indoor swimming pool). The current pool building is surrounded by mature vegetation. Palm trees that line Tennis Avenue have a placard stating that they were planted in 1946, and a war memorial is located at the entrance to the pool building.
The Orange Pool building was documented and evaluated for potential eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and designation as a South San Francisco Historical Resource. Both assessments found no historic resources within the project area and that the Orange Pool building does not demonstrate historical significance such that it would qualify for listing or designation under either program. As such, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as a historical resource.
The project would refurbish and move the existing Eternal Flame sculpture to a new plaza area in the project area. Since the Eternal Flame sculpture was relocated from City Hall to the Park in the past, and would be relocated again as part of the project, the project would not affect the historical status of the
sculpture.
Therefore, the project, which includes the demolition of the current Orange Pool building and the construction of the new aquatic center, would have no impact on historical resources.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. No archaeological resources, artifacts, or features were observed
within the project area. As discussed above, the former railroad tracks on Railroad Avenue that were a part of the Southern Pacific Junction have been previously removed.
The disturbed nature of the site through its grading and various periods of development and
improvements as a municipal park suggests that the overall archaeological sensitivity for the project area is low. Despite this low overall sensitivity, it is possible that unknown archaeological resources are extant within the project area. Such resources have the potential to be impacted during the construction of the project, particularly during ground-disturbing activities. However, any project impacts to unknown archaeological resources can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by following the Inadvertent Discovery procedures noted below in Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1:
The following measures shall be implemented in the event that unanticipated cultural resources are exposed during project construction:
a. In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are exposed during disturbance activities, work within 15 meters (50 feet) of the find must stop and an SOI-qualified archaeologist (SWCA
Senior Project Manager Christina Alonso [925-399-9220]) must be notified immediately. Work may not resume until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Disturbance activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant, additional
work such as archaeological testing, data recovery, or consultation with stakeholders may be warranted.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Although, according to the representative of the Amah Mutsun Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, railroads were historically built on Native burial grounds, there are no known cemeteries or burial sites in the project area. There is a low potential to encounter intact buried
human remains within the project area. Despite this low overall sensitivity, it is possible that unanticipated human remains are extant within the project area, which have the potential to be impacted during the construction of the project, particularly during ground-disturbing activities. However, any project impacts to unknown human remains can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by following the Discovery of Human Remains procedures noted below in Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2:
The following measures shall be implemented in the event that human remains are exposed during project construction:
The discovery of human remains during the course of the project is a possibility. If human remains are encountered, then the procedures outlined by the NAHC, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98, would be followed. If the monitor determines that a discovery includes human remains:
a. All ground-disturbing work within the immediate vicinity (25 feet) of the find would halt.
b. The archaeologist would contact the San Mateo County Coroner:
San Mateo County Coroner 50 Tower Road San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: (650) 312-5562 Web: https://www.smcgov.org/coroner
c. As a courtesy, the County Coroner would also notify the NAHC:
Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 373-3710 Email: nahc@nahc.ca.gov
The County Coroner would have 2 working days to examine the remains after being notified in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the San Mateo County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and are not subject to the County
Coroner’s authority, the County Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC of the discovery.
d. The NAHC would immediately designate and notify the Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD), who will have 48 hours after being granted access to the location of the remains to inspect them and provide recommendations for the treatment of them.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31
VI. Energy
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The City of South San Francisco adopted their Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2022 (City of South San Francisco 2022b). The CAP identifies strategies and actions to reduce GHG emissions and achieve carbon
neutrality by 2045. Through the CAP, the City implements GHG reduction measures at both City-owned facilities and at private developments, including, but not limited to, energy-efficient new construction, all-electric construction of new buildings, the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; implementing
landscape water requirements; requiring high efficiency water fixtures; increasing tree canopy; implementing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) program; and requiring electrical car charging stations at City facilities.
Less than Significant. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a 50-year-old aquatic center, construction of a new aquatic center with two pools, mechanical equipment and infrastructure, and various landscaping and hardscape. During construction, energy consumption would be associated with primarily diesel and gasoline fuel consumption for the operation of construction equipment and for worker and haul trips. During operations, energy consumption would be limited to electricity needed for standard building and pool operations such as lighting, heating/cooling, and mechanical equipment, as well as outdoor exterior and landscape lighting. No natural gas is planned for consumption. The consumption of energy resources during construction would be temporary and the installation of a new and energy-efficient building and equipment is anticipated to function more effectively than the existing aquatic center. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in potentially short- or long-term significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Instead,
the proposed project would improve energy efficiency for the City’s aquatic center. While construction activities would involve diesel and gasoline fuel use for equipment and haul and commuter trips, overall consumption would be minimal and temporary, lasting approximately 18 months. For these reasons, the project’s energy use would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant. The proposed Orange Pool Aquatic Center is considered a new development. The City’s CAP has goals for new development that include providing on-site solar and batteries when feasible; constructing all-electric buildings; exceeding mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32
percent or more; providing EV charging stations at municipal facilities; enhancing bicycle, transit and pedestrian connectivity; implementing mandatory organics and food waste diversion; using water
efficient landscaping and high-efficiency water fixtures; expanding tree canopy cover; requiring all new municipal buildings and facilities to meet minimum LEED silver standards; and requiring municipal projects to achieve 75 percent waste diversion from landfill.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s CAP. The new pool facilities would meet or exceed energy efficiency requirements, are all-electric, include solar panels, and may include batteries if determined to be feasible. The project includes three EV charging stations in the new parking lot, 9 bicycle racks, water efficient landscaping and high-efficiency water fixtures. Proposed building materials and mechanical equipment would include energy-efficient glazing, insulation, and energy efficient models. At least 75 percent of asphalt or concrete removed during construction would be recycled. The project would also be consistent with all state plans for energy efficiency, including the 2017 California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping Plan, State of California Energy Plan, California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, State Alternative Fuels Plan, California Green Building Standards Code—Part 11, Title 24, and California Code of Regulations (CALGreen), the first-in-the-nation mandatory green building standards code. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts on energy would be less than significant.
VII. Geology and Soils
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Directly or indirectly cause 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.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
The analysis in this section is based on the Geotechnical Evaluation – Revision 1 for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, December 6, 2022, by Ninyo and Moore. The geologic study includes seismic hazards (liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence), compressible soils, expansive soils, and
corrosive soils.
a-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.
Less than Significant. The project site is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the San Andreas Fault Zone and is not located in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2021). Therefore, while the project site is in a known seismic area and would likely be subject to earthquakes, the likelihood of surface faulting or ground rupture is considered low, and it would not be likely to be subject to surface rupture from a known earthquake fault. Therefore, potential impacts related to surface rupture from earthquake activity are less than significant.
a-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant. The project site is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the San Andreas Fault Zone and 16.3 miles southwest of the Hayward Fault Zone, in one of the most seismically active
regions in the state. The San Andreas Fault has produced earthquakes of an estimated magnitude between 7.7 and 8.3 in 1906 (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2023), and 6.9 in 1989 (USGS 2019). The 1908 quake produced shaking on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of between VII and IX which was
strong enough to cause significant damage to structures around the peninsula (USGS 2023).
The design and construction of the project is required to comply with the building codes related to seismic risk such as the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and South San Francisco Municipal Code, which
incorporates the International Building Code. The City would be required to submit a soils report in order to obtain a building permit from the City Economic and Community Development Department, Building Division, which would ensure that project plans and specifications comply with the CBC and local amendments to the code, where applicable (City of SSF 2018). Among many seismic requirements, the CBC requires foundations and structures to be designed and constructed to withstand the ground motions (i.e., peak ground accelerations [g]) that have a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34
(equivalent to a 1/475 annual chance of being exceeded). Therefore, compliance with CBC requirements would result in a less-than-significant impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking.
a-iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is in a liquefaction hazard zone identified by the State Geologist (California Geological Survey 2021).
The geotechnical study analyzed the potential for liquefaction from a magnitude 7.81 earthquake producing a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.99 gravity (g). Peak ground acceleration is a measure of how hard the ground shakes at a given point. A PGA of 0.99g is correlated to an intensity of IX on the Modified Mercalli Scale, which would produce violent perceived ground shaking and heavy damage to man-made structures.
The study assumed a groundwater depth of 12 to 13 feet. The results indicate that soil at depths ranging from about 10 to 23 feet, and from about 25 to 34 feet below ground surface may liquefy, potentially causing settlement, sand boils (where liquefied soils from below are ejected up through the ground surface), and ground subsidence. The study identified the potential for liquefaction of up to 5 inches in the liquefaction zone, and an additional 3 to 5 inches of settlement in the dry zone above the liquefaction zone.
Since the site is located within a liquefaction-susceptible zone, and based on the results of the geotechnical evaluation, the project would have the potential for ground shaking, liquefaction-induced ground settlement, and sand-boil-induced ground subsidence. Therefore, impacts related to ground failure
would be potentially significant. Implementation of the engineering recommendations provided in the geotechnical report, and proposed Mitigation Measure GEO-1, would minimize risks to life and property from seismic-related hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1:
All earthwork and construction activities shall be monitored by a licensed engineer or professional
geologist. The purpose of the monitoring is to assess soil conditions and confirm the appropriate engineered support systems are incorporated into the project design and installed correctly.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, in addition to the requirements of the geotechnical report, would reduce impacts related to seismic hazards to less than significant.
a-iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is relatively flat, with elevations varying from 25 to 29 feet above mean sea level. It is not located in an identified landslide hazard zone. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to landslide hazard and no impact would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant. A significant impact would occur if a project would expose large areas to the erosional effects of wind and water for a protracted period of time, resulting in substantial erosion and/or
the loss of topsoil. The majority of the ground surface on the north side of the park consists of 1 to 4 feet of imported fill material on top of native soil. Much of it is paved over. The project site has a low-to-moderate erosion risk. Since the majority of the project work area is previously disturbed and essentially flat, clearing, excavation, and grading activities at the project site are unlikely to result in
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35
significant short-term erosion impacts. In addition, project construction would comply with the SMCWPPP, which would include BMPs to prevent stormwater erosion from leaving the site. The project
would also comply with the BAAQMD fugitive dust requirements, which would prevent dust from wind erosion from leaving the site.
The project would require excavation for the new swimming pools, buildings, and parking area.
The project would require a total of approximately 9,700 cubic yards (CY) of cut, approximately 970 CY of which may be used as fill. A maximum of approximately 9,700 cubic yards of soil and 800 cubic yards of debris from demolition of the existing pool and hardscape would be hauled off-site for disposal. Engineered fill would be imported to the site.
As required by the San Francisco RWQCB and the SMCWPPP, the project would implement BMPs to reduce erosion during construction. Since the total area of disturbance is more than 1 acre (approximately 6.5 acres), the City would be required to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), according to the requirements of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the SMCWPPP. The plan would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation impacts and stabilize disturbed bare earth areas. Any bare earth areas would be reseeded prior to the end of construction. Section 3.X, Hydrology and Water
Quality, provides additional information about the SWPPP and Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit requirements and related permits.
The addition of approximately 17,215 square feet (approximately 0.4 acre) of impervious surface area for the aquatic center, parking lot, and walkways could increase the stormwater runoff volume and rate compared with existing conditions, which could in turn accelerate soil erosion and loss of topsoil if stormwater were conveyed directly into Colma Creek. However, as discussed in Section 3.X(a), the
project is a C.3 regulated project and includes LID stormwater measures that meet City requirements to contain and treat stormwater flow. Stormwater from the project site would flow overland to treatment and containment areas on the project site. Overflow would discharge to a storm drain on W. Orange Avenue, which would eventually discharge to Colma Creek. Stormwater runoff would be directed into new vegetated channels, which would provide biotreatment of stormwater before it enters the storm drain and Colma Creek; this biotreatment meets the requirements of the C.3 program. All disturbed areas would be reseeded and/or landscaped prior to the end of construction. The new drainage and treatment system would be adequate to handle the additional volume of stormwater from 0.4 acre of impervious surface area. Therefore, impacts resulting from water-related erosion would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project site has a high potential for liquefaction. As discussed above, the City has completed a geotechnical report and would be required to submit a soils report that complies with the CBC. As stated above, 2022 CBC and standard geotechnical engineering practice requires identification of seismic design parameters to inform all earthwork requirements, foundation designs, and concrete/building material specifications. Design and construction of the project
in accordance with the CBC and the recommendations in the geotechnical report, along with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, would be sufficient to ensure public exposure to risks related to seismic-induced ground failure would remain minimal. Therefore, this impact would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
No Impact. The geotechnical report determined that the expansion index of the soils on the project site had very low expansion potential, and the subsurface borings showed granular soils with little expansion
potential. There are no substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as the expansion index of the soils on the project site had very low expansion potential. Therefore, the risk related to expansive soils is relatively low and this impact would be less than significant.
e) Would the project 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?
No Impact. The project would not include septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. While the majority of the project site has been previously disturbed as a developed recreational park, ground disturbance and excavation for the pools and within the project area would occur during construction. Excavation in these areas could potentially uncover unique paleontological resources or geologic features. Based on the results of borings for the adjacent
Stormwater Capture Project, located approximately 120 feet southwest of the project, the likelihood of encountering unique paleontological resources or geologic features is low; however, the potential for uncovering such resources during excavation remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that if historic
or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or excavation activities, all work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery area and the contractor shall notify the City. The implementation of this measure also applies to paleontological resources and geologic features, thereby minimizing potential
impacts to such resources. Therefore, impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be less than significant with mitigation.
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
Global climate change can be measured by changes in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and
temperature. Scientific consensus has identified human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37
above natural levels is a significant contributor to global climate change. GHGs are substances that trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the Earth’s temperature, and include water vapor, CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ground level ozone, and fluorinated gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons. The potential impacts of climate change include severe weather patterns, flooding, reduced quality and availability of water, sea level rise, and beach erosion. Primary activities associated with GHG emissions include transportation, utilities (e.g., power generation and transport), industry, manufacturing, agriculture, and residential. End-use sector sources of GHG emissions in California are as follows: transportation (41 percent); industry (23 percent); electricity generation (16 percent); agriculture and forestry (8 percent); residential (7 percent); and commercial (5 percent) (CARB 2018).
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 is a California State Law that establishes a comprehensive program to reduce GHG emissions from all sources throughout the state. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, representing a 25 percent reduction statewide, with mandatory caps beginning in 2012 for significant emissions sources.
GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
Therefore, an individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently
considered cumulative impacts. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development in the City of South San Francisco are primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area
sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste.
GHG Emissions Threshold
At the regional level, the BAAQMD has proposed the following thresholds of significance for operational-related GHG emissions as of May 2017:
• For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/year) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/year (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/year) of CO2e. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate.
If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact. The BAAQMD has not yet adopted a threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, Section 8.2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends that the Lead Agency quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction and make a determination of the significance of the construction-related GHG impacts in relation to meeting Assembly Bill 32 GHG reduction goals. The Lead Agency is also encouraged to incorporate BMPs to reduce GHG emissions during construction as applicable. BMPs
include but are not limited to: using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet; using local building materials of at least 10 percent; and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials (BAAQMD
2017b).
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38
The City of South San Francisco adopted a CAP in 2022 that identifies strategies and actions to reduce GHG emissions. The City has and continues to implement GHG reduction measures associated with both
City-owned facilities and private development. These GHG reduction measures include, but are not limited to: the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; adopting and enforcing a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance; adopting and implementing a TDM program; and providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant. The primary source of proposed Project construction GHG emissions would be from mobile sources such as worker trips and from haul trips during excavation. Neither the City of South San Francisco nor the BAAQMD has adopted a threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, the Lead Agency should quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction, and make a determination on the significance of these construction-generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as required by the Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2. Project operational GHG emissions would be limited to the long-term operation of a new Aquatic Center, including heating, cooling, general lighting and operational uses. The
BAAQMD operational, long-term GHG emission thresholds of significance for stationary source projects is more than 10,000 metric tons per year carbon dioxide equivalent units (MTCO2e/year). If a project generates GHG emissions above the threshold level, the project would be considered to generate
significant GHG emissions and conflict with applicable GHG regulations. Given that the proposed Project operations would be limited to the electrical operation associated with the new Aquatic Center, annual operation GHG emissions are calculated to be 228 MTCO2e/year, well below the 10,000 MTCO2e/year
threshold of significance. Annual short-term construction GHG emissions would be 321 MTCO2e/year and would not significantly contribute to climate change. For these reasons, the proposed project’s GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant. The BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan outlines the goals and objectives to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, consistent with the GHG reduction targets adopted by the state of California. The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes the following measures to reduce emissions from construction and farming equipment:
• Use various strategies to reduce emissions from construction and farming equipment (e.g., incentives for equipment upgrades and/ or encourage the use of renewable electricity and fuels).
• Provide incentives for the early deployment of electric, Tier 3 and 4 off-road engines used in construction, freight and farming equipment.
• Support field demonstrations of advanced technology for off-road engines and hybrid drive trains.
• Work with CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and others to develop more fuel-efficient off-road engines and drive-trains; and
• Work with local communities, contractors, farmers, and developers to encourage the use of
renewable electricity and renewable fuels, such as biodiesel from local crops and waste fats and oils, in applicable equipment.
CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan (2008) has several measures to reduce emissions from transportation fuels, which would indirectly reduce emissions from construction equipment. These include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which would reduce GHG emissions by minimizing the full fuel-cycle carbon
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39
intensity of transportation fuels used in California. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which builds upon the initial Scoping Plan, contains new strategies and recommendations to reduce GHG to reach the State’s
2030 GHG emissions reduction target (CARB 2017). California’s overall plan for climate adaptation is also summarized in Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. This plan provides policy guidance associated with climate risks in nine sectors in California and provides realistic sector-specific recommendations (CNRA 2018).
The various plans, policies, and regulations at the state and local level do not directly require the reduction of GHG emissions from construction equipment; however, emissions would be indirectly reduced through programs like the LCFS. Several rules adopted to reduce emissions of non-GHGs, such as CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation (13 CCR 2449), could also reduce GHG emissions. Since the construction equipment would operate in compliance with all applicable regulations for off-road equipment, the proposed project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Proposed mechanical equipment needed for standard building and pool operations, as well as energy efficiency for lighting and heating/cooling, would include energy efficient models. No natural gas is planned for operations. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant.
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations or would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors.
Construction of the project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. These materials include paints, adhesives, surface coatings, cleaning agents, fuels, and oils that
are typically associated with development of any construction project. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, construction activities would be temporary, lasting approximately 18 months. These temporary construction activities involving the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials
would be conducted in compliance with all health and safety requirements, such as County and City General Plan policies, CCR Sections 337 through 340, Chapter 6.95 of California Health and Safety Code Article 1, and CCR Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2 (if required). Because the City and contractor would comply with applicable regulations and laws pertaining to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, the exposure of the public, construction workers, and environment to hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Operation of the pool would include an automatic system using chlorine products (calcium chloride, calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, sodium bicarbonate, sodium hypochlorite, sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate) in liquid form for disinfection in both the indoor and outdoor pools. The indoor pool would also use UV radiation as a secondary process to control the formation of undesirable chlorine byproducts. A computerized system would monitor chlorine levels in both pools to ensure the proper levels of chlorine and increased water quality (City of South San Francisco 2023c). Chemicals would be held in closed tanks with secondary containment, and refillable by container truck. Chlorine storage and delivery systems would meet standard engineering requirements for safety and are considered low hazard.
The project site and vicinity include an urban park and urban residential areas. The area historically supported flower nurseries, including the Mantegani site and Mazzanti Carnation, Inc. The Mantegani site, approximately 300 feet north of the project site, was an ornamental flower nursery from 1931 to
1987 specializing in snapdragons and carnations. The site underwent a cleanup for pesticide contaminants (primarily dieldrin and DDT) that was certified as complete as of February 20, 2007 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] 2023b). Mazzanti Carnations, Inc., approximately 800
feet west of the project site, operated greenhouses until the early 1990s. The site underwent a cleanup for pesticide contaminants (insecticides, fumigants, and herbicides) that was certified as complete as of August 26, 2016 (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2023b).
Soil and water testing was completed by Fugro Consultants, Inc. in 2016 for Orange Memorial Park’s Stormwater Capture Project, approximately 480 feet southwest of the project. Testing revealed relatively low levels of organochlorine pesticides at soil depths of between 2 and 3.5 feet below ground surface.
Fugro Consultants, Inc. also identified that arsenic was the only material present in amounts exceeding an Environmental Screening Level (ESL).2 Arsenic was detected at levels between 1.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 3.0 mg/kg, which exceeds the commercial shallow soil exposure ESL of 0.31 mg/kg and the Any Land Use/Any Soil Depth Exposure for a Construction Worker ESL of 0.94
2 ESLs are developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. They are intended to help identify potential environmental concerns at contaminated sites but are not intended to establish policy or regulation (SWRCB 2020).
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41
mg/kg. The amount of arsenic present is common as background levels in Bay Area soils and is not likely to be from greenhouse use.
All construction activities would be required to comply with applicable policies, standards, and regulations to ensure there are no hazards related to the routine use, disposal, transport, or accidental release of hazardous materials (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]
requirements, Title 8 and 22 of the Code of California Regulations). All excavated fill and native soil material would be disposed in accordance with applicable codes and regulations and the transport and disposal of these materials is not expected to create a significant hazard to construction workers or the
nearby community. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and this impact would be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would further reduce this less than significant impact.
b) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if a project could create an upset or accident condition involving hazardous materials. The project is not located on a hazardous contamination site, and thus there is no reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials from existing hazardous
contamination.27F Construction of the project would use small amounts of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel. The BMPs implemented for the SMCWPPP (discussed further in Section 3.X, Hydrology and Water Quality) would contain minor spills during construction. Operation of the pool complex and use of pool chemicals would not change appreciably because of the project. Therefore, the project would not 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, and the impact
would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if a project site is within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school site, and the project is projected to release hazardous emissions that would exceed regulatory thresholds and would pose a health hazard. The closest school is Los Cerritos Elementary School, located approximately 0.23 mile southwest of the project. Other schools in the vicinity include South San Francisco High School and Parkway Heights Middle School, which are 0.35 mile southwest and 0.36 mile northeast, respectively. In addition to camps, the Ferneke Building is used to host spring and summer camps. Spring Camp occurs one week out of the year. Summer Camps occur nine weeks out of the year (City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation 2023). As discussed under Sections 3.IX(a) and 3.IX(b) above, the project would comply with applicable regulations and laws pertaining to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not handle hazardous materials in a way that would emit hazardous emissions. Common handling of pool chemicals and small amounts of materials such as cleaning materials is unlikely to
impact local schools. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42
d) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various state agencies to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized release from
underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells, and solid waste facilities from which there is known migration of hazardous waste, and to submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. In meeting the provisions in California Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” database resources such as EnviroStor and GeoTracker provide information regarding identified facilities (DTSC 2023a; SWRCB 2023a).
As discussed under Section 3.IX(a), two sites have undergone cleanup for pesticide contamination in the vicinity of the project: the Mantegani site, approximately 300 feet from the project site, at 735 Commercial Avenue; and the Mazzanti Carnation site, approximately 800 feet from the project site, at 781 Tennis Drive. Both sites have undergone cleanup and been certified.
In addition, investigations for Orange Memorial Park’s Stormwater Capture Project, approximately 500 feet southwest of the project site, conducted in 2016 identified low levels of organochlorine pesticides in
the soil samples collected at depths between 2 and 3.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). For these soil samples, analyses detected concentrations of DDD (at 0.0022 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg], DDE (up to 0.47 mg/kg), DDT (up to 0.38 mg/kg), and dieldrin (up to 0.17 mg/kg). All these detected
concentrations were at or below respective Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for commercial shallow soil exposure and any soil depth exposures for construction workers (Fugro Consultant, Inc. 2016).
Investigations for the Stormwater Capture Project also identified elevated levels of arsenic in the soil that are likely the result of historic chemical use, as well as its presence in local bedrock materials that have been used as import fill (City of South San Francisco 2019). Soil sampling for the Stormwater Capture
Project detected the presence of arsenic in all samples at a range of 1.0 to 3.0 mg/kg (Fugro Consultant, Inc. 2016). These concentrations fall within the expected range of naturally occurring arsenic for the area. While this concentration is higher than DTSC/RWQCB ESL, the concentrations do not rise to levels that raise agency concern (e.g., 1,000 or 10,000 times above the ESL).
Construction would involve excavation, and grading, and the movement of soils and dust emissions from these activities which could cause a temporary impact to the public or the environment. Short-term soil exposure would potentially affect construction workers due to the potential presence of low levels of organochlorine pesticides and arsenic as detected in the soil samples at the adjacent Water Capture
Project. All construction activities would be required to comply with applicable policies, standards, and regulations to ensure there are no hazards related to the routine use, disposal, transport, or accidental release of hazardous materials (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] requirements, Title 8 and 22 of the Code of California Regulations). All excavated fill and native soil material would be disposed in accordance with applicable codes and regulations and the transport and disposal of these materials is not expected to create a significant hazard to construction workers or the
nearby community.
According to EnviroStor and GeoTracker,. no hazardous contamination sites are located on the project site. The Mantegani site and Mazzanti site both completed cleanups and were certified; therefore, they do
not present a danger of contamination. While arsenic levels were above the Commercial Shallow Soil exposure ESL and Any Land Use/Any Soil Depth Exposure for a Construction Worker ESL, throughout California arsenic levels have been found higher than ESLs due to historic chemical usage and from its presence in local bedrock materials, which have been used as import fill (Fugro Consultants, Inc. 2016).
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43
The original pool building was constructed and opened in 1970. All buildings built before 1978 are presumed to contain lead paint. The County or its Contractor must develop and implement a demolition
debris management and disposal plan for the non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous materials that are to be removed from the project site per compliance with County waste diversion requirements in San Mateo County Code of Ordinances, Section 4.105.030 (100 percent of inert solids and at least 50 percent of the remaining construction and demolition debris tonnage). The plan must be designed to prevent releases of hazardous materials in quantities that could pose a risk to human health and the environment, as determined using appropriate BAAQMD, RWQCB, DTSC, and/or other appropriate agency screening thresholds. Compliance with state and federal requirements and implementation of the debris management and disposal plan specified in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure the project has a less-than-significant impact on the public or the environment related to disposal of hazardous materials. The impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:
The County or its Contractor must develop and implement a demolition debris management and disposal plan for the non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous materials that are to be removed from the project site per compliance with County waste diversion requirements in San Mateo County
Code of Ordinances, Section 4.105.030 (100 percent of inert solids and at least 50 percent of the remaining construction and demolition debris tonnage). The plan must be designed to prevent releases of hazardous materials in quantities that could pose a risk to human health and the environment, as
determined using appropriate BAAQMD, RWQCB, DTSC, and/or other appropriate agency screening thresholds.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2:
The construction contractor (as required by the contract specifications) shall develop a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan (HMCP) that includes standard construction measures required by federal, state, and local policies for the handling of potential hazardous materials and removal of on-site debris.
The HMCP shall include the implementation of a Waste Management Plan (WMP) for the management of all construction waste, and a Safety Management Plan (SMP) to minimize construction worker’s exposure to dust emissions and emissions that have the potential to contain hazardous concentrations of arsenic. At a minimum, this plan shall include the following:
a. Soils on the project site should be tested for arsenic and organochlorine pesticides prior to grading and excavation.
b. If contaminated soils or other hazardous materials are encountered during any soil moving operation during construction, the HMCP shall be implemented.
c. Instruct workers on recognition and reporting of materials that may be hazardous.
d. Minimize delays by continuing performance of the work in areas not affected by hazardous materials operations.
e. Identify and contact subcontractors and licensed personnel qualified to undertake storage, removal, transportation, disposal, and other remedial work required by, and in accordance with, laws and regulations.
f. Forward to engineer, copies of reports, permits, receipts, and other documentation related to remedial work.
g. Notify such agencies as are required to be notified by laws and regulations within the time
stipulated by such laws and regulations.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44
h. File requests for adjustments to contract time and contract price due to the finding of hazardous materials in the work site in accordance with conditions of contract.
Implementation of a mitigation measures HAZ-1, Demolition Debris Management and Disposal Plan, and HAZ-2, Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan, would reduce potentially significant impacts from exposure to soil contaminants, and elements of building debris such as lead paint to less than significant
levels.
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, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant. The project is located approximately 2.1 miles northeast of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and is within the jurisdiction of the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The project is located within the boundaries of two subareas of Airport Influence Area B (Figure 6).
The 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 77 Subpart C. Conical Surface zone establishes obstruction standards for the airspace around airports including approach zones, conical zones, transitional zones, and horizontal zones known as “imaginary surfaces.” The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers objects penetrating these surfaces as obstructions to navigation and requires marking and lighting them for avoidance. The project site is located in an area that would require
clearance measures of structures between 100 and 150 feet above ground surface (City/County Associations of Governments of San Mateo County [C/CAG] 2012). Project structures would have a maximum height of approximately 30 feet above ground surface; therefore, it would not impact the
conical surface zone and no impact would occur. The second subarea (Outer Boundary for TERPS approach One Engine Inoperative (OEI) departure surfaces) is a safety zone for airplane approach and departure areas. It also identifies imaginary airspace surfaces (FAA Order 8260.3B, U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures [TERPS]) designed to ensure the safe separation of aircraft operating under instrument procedures from man-made and natural obstructions. The critical aeronautical surfaces where the project is located are more than 150 feet above ground level (C/CAG 2012). Project structures would have a maximum height of approximately 30 feet above ground surface; therefore the project would not impact the TERPS imaginary airspace surfaces and this impact would be less than significant.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45
Figure 6. San Francisco International Airport, Airport Influence Areas.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a
plan.
During short-term construction activities including the associated roadway improvements, partial or complete road closures may be required along both Tennis Drive and W. Orange Avenue to accommodate utility trenching for installation of storm drains, domestic water, and fire water lines, and road improvements and striping. Closures would not impact individual access to other properties. The City’s General Plan does not identify emergency evacuation routes. W. Orange Avenue is identified as an arterial boulevard and Tennis Drive is identified as a collector street.
During the construction phase, the City would require an encroachment permit for any temporary activities that would affect the public right-of-way. Encroachment permit conditions would include a traffic control plan with temporary procedures for emergency access. Additionally, in the event of complete or partial lane closures, sufficient alternative routes exist near the facility and the project would
not interfere or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and this impact would be less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and
would pose a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. CalFire maps Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), as well as Very High FHSZs in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). The project site is in an LRA and is under the
jurisdiction of the South San Francisco Fire Department. There are no Very High FHSZs mapped in South San Francisco (CalFire 2008). San Bruno Mountain, 0.8 mile north of the project site, is in a Moderate FHSZ in an SRA (CalFire 2022). The project site is regularly maintained by City Park and Recreation staff and generally lacks combustible native vegetation. The project would replace an existing public pool and aquatic center with a new pool complex. It would not draw additional people to an area subject to wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur.
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant. Activities associated with construction of the project could have a significant impact if they resulted in violation of waste discharge requirements under the San Francisco Bay
RWCQB’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit from contaminated runoff entering the stormwater system. The project site is not adjacent to any water bodies. Colma Creek, approximately 40 feet southwest of the project, is the closest water body.
The SMCWPPP is a partnership of C/CAG, each incorporated city and town in the County, and the County, which share a common NPDES permit. The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit was issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2022) in compliance with the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan and the NPDES Program. Participating agencies (including the County and City) must comply with the provisions of the countywide permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, water quality impacts from stormwater runoff during both construction and operational periods of projects (County of San Mateo 2023).
CONSTRUCTION
The proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of land and must obtain an individual NPDES General Construction Permit for the stormwater discharges during construction and implement a SWPPP
for the site. The SWPPP would include the implementation of erosion and sedimentation BMPs, monitoring, and reporting that would reduce surface and groundwater quality impacts. It must also include a drainage control plan with site-specific BMPs that are designed to prevent runoff from
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48
construction areas to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality during project construction. The plan would also include design elements and BMPs for construction areas, such as fueling and
equipment washing areas and trash and hazardous material storage areas. No construction would occur during major rain events, minimizing any chance of runoff from the site. Major rain events would be considered as a prediction of 0.25 inch or more in 24 hours.
As described in Section 2.5, Construction, construction of the aquatic center would require demolition of the existing pool building, pool, and parking area; clearing and grading activities; filling portions of the project site to elevate them out of the floodplain; construction of the building, pools, and parking area; and trenching for utilities. The project would result in temporary disturbance of approximately 6.5 acres on-site, plus an additional approximately 2 acres for temporary staging, and would permanently develop approximately 6.5 acres.
Construction activities associated with the aquatic center would require the presence of construction vehicles, heavy equipment and materials, and construction crews. Construction activity, including demolition, site grading, excavation, and the construction of the aquatic center, would result in temporary soil erosion that could temporarily affect water quality. In addition to stormwater runoff and potential resulting water quality and sedimentation impacts, there is the potential for hazardous materials, including
petroleum products associated with diesel vehicle and equipment use and contaminants from paving materials, concrete mixing, pouring and washout, and sanitary facilities, to leave the site.
OPERATION
Following construction, the project site would be restored and landscaped surrounding the new aquatic center, including stormwater retention and treatment areas, thereby reducing any future water quality impacts. Approximately 1,855 square feet of LID treatment areas would be added on-site. Stormwater
would be directed to these areas before discharging to the existing storm drain in W. Orange Avenue.
The project would comply with all stormwater requirements of the SWRCB and the County, and would include bioretention basins and treatment areas adequate to treat runoff from the additional impervious
surface area, Therefore, water quality impacts associated with the new aquatic center would be less than significant
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant. California Water Service Company (CalWater) provides water service to the City. CalWater obtains the majority of its water from the San Francisco Water Department and supplies approximately 1,534 acre-feet3 per year (AFY) to the City from local groundwater wells. The project overlays the Westside Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2-35). Municipal and agricultural groundwater wells in the Basin range from depths of 130 to 825 feet (Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2006). CalWater operates groundwater wells in the Basin that serve its South San Francisco District (CalWater 2021). The basin is not adjudicated and DWR has determined the Basin is not in a state of critical overdraft and is a low priority for adjudication (CalWater 2021).
A potentially significant impact would occur if a project includes deep excavations resulting in the
potential to interfere with groundwater movement, the withdrawal of groundwater, or paving of existing permeable surfaces important to groundwater recharge. The project would excavate to a depth of 12 feet, which would not be likely to significantly impact the groundwater table or groundwater movement. In the
3 An acre-foot is a volume of water equal to a sheet of water 1 acre in area and 1 foot thick, or 43,560 cubic feet of water.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49
adjacent Stormwater Capture Project, groundwater was determined to be at a minimum depth of approximately 12 to 13 feet below ground surface (City of South San Francisco 2019). Excavations for
the pools and utilities would be limited in scope but may encounter shallow groundwater which would require dewatering during construction. However, dewatering for construction would be short term and temporary, and construction would not include excavation to depths that could affect groundwater movement or well production; therefore, construction of the project would be unlikely to significantly impact groundwater movement and this impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
c-i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less than Significant. Planned earthwork and grading activities on the project site would involve a maximum total cut and fill of approximately 10,670 cubic yards – approximately 9,700 cubic yards of cut and 970 cubic yards of fill. The project site is essentially flat, and all project components would be required to implement erosion control measures, as discussed under Section 3.X(a).
Construction of the project would include implementation of SWPPP BMPs under the State Water Board General Construction Permit and SMCWPPP. Implementation of the SWPPP would reduce potential erosion and sedimentation from project construction to less-than-significant levels.
Operation of the project would result in an increase of impervious surface compared to existing
conditions of approximately 17,215 square feet. Therefore, the project would qualify as a C.3 regulated project under the SMCWPPP. Under the C.3 program, the project is required to incorporate controls to reduce pollutant runoff in stormwater. Most controls are required to be LID measures, which include:
biotreatment areas, flowthrough planters, rain barrels or cisterns, green roofs, pervious pavement, or other stormwater treatment measures designed to infiltrate or detain stormwater runoff, so that all of the runoff required to be treated per the stormwater permit soaks into the ground, is stored for irrigation or in-
building use, evaporates, or is taken up by plants. These requirements apply to most projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area (FlowstoBay 2023).
The aquatic center and surrounding area would drain to new LID treatment areas on-site, including vegetated stormwater channels. The project will install a new connection to the existing storm drain main on W. Orange Avenue, which ultimately outfalls to Colma Creek; therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would cause erosion. Compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and Planning Department requirements will reduce drainage and stormwater impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site resulting in substantial erosion or siltation, and the impact would be less than significant.
c-ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if a project results in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding conditions affecting the
project site or nearby properties. As described in Sections 3.X(a) and 3.10(b), the project would result in an increase in impervious surface area of approximately 17,215 square feet and would construct new vegetated stormwater channels which would capture runoff from the additional square footage resulting
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50
from a 10-year, 2-hour storm event.4 Compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and Planning Department requirements would reduce drainage and stormwater impacts to a less-than-
significant level. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site resulting in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, and the impact would be less than significant.
c-iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than Significant. As described in Sections 3.X(a) and 3.X(b), the project would result in an increase in impervious surface area of approximately 17,215 square feet and would construct new vegetated stormwater channels that would have adequate capacity to contain runoff from the additional square footage. The LID treatment areas would discharge to the stormwater system in W. Orange Avenue, which discharges to Colma Creek. Compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and Planning Department requirements would reduce drainage and stormwater impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would not exceed the capacity of the existing and/or planned stormwater drain system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and the impact would be less than
significant.
c-iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if a project were located in a flood hazard area
and would impede or redirect flood flows. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project site is in 100-year flood hazard zone AE, with a base flood elevation of approximately 26 feet above mean sea level (amsl). However, one of the objectives of the recently completed Stormwater Capture
Project is to alleviate localized flooding in lower reaches of Colma Creek. The water capture facility would divert approximately 5 percent of the water flows from Colma Creek through an inlet structure approximately 870 feet west and upstream of the proposed project. The underground reservoir is capable
of holding 7.5 acre-feet (2.44 million gallons) and stored water would be used for irrigation and infiltration with a 0.5-inch-per-hour drawdown rate. Excess water would discharge to Colma Creek via an outfall pipe situated immediately south of the existing basketball courts and approximately 500 feet southwest of the proposed project. The storm water capture project will reduce flows in the creek and reduce overall flood risks down-stream, thereby reducing flood risk on the project site and surrounding neighborhoods The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map has not been updated since the Water Capture Project was completed, and the new 100-year flood elevation is calculated to be 23.8 feet amsl. The existing elevation in the vicinity of the existing parking lot is between 25.3 and 25.5 feet amsl, therefore, the project site would be unlikely to be vulnerable to flooding from Colma Creek. The project would be required to raise the floor of the pool building to one foot above flood stage or 24.8 feet amsl. In grading the site, the project would raise the floor of the pool facilities to 26.25 feet amsl, which is above the 100-
year floodplain. Therefore, the project would redirect flood flows around the pool building. However, the difference in elevation would be up to approximately one foot compared to existing conditions, therefore, the effect of redirecting flood flows would be minimal and this impact would be less than significant.
4 A 10-year, 2-hour storm means a storm of 2 hours duration that is capable of producing a volume of rainfall expected to be equaled or exceeded on the average of once in 10 years.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant. The project site is in a FEMA flood hazard zone AE with a base flood elevation of approximately 23.8 feet (Kim-Van Truong 2023). Flood hazard zone AE is defined as an area with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding, and with a calculated base flood elevation (FEMA 2023).
Chapter 15.56 of the City’s Municipal Code includes regulations to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities from flood events. Section 15.56.030(b) requires that facilities vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. Under the municipal code, the floodplain administrator must review all development permits to determine that the site is reasonably safe from flooding; that the proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated; and that documentation of certification for the project meets requirements for construction in a flood zone.
Under Section 15.56.160(c)(2), all nonresidential construction in flood zones must be either elevated or floodproofed. The pool facilities will be elevated above the flood hazard zone as part of the grading work; therefore, impacts from flooding would be less than significant. The project site is not located in either a seiche or tsunami zone (City of South San Francisco 2022a). A seiche is a standing wave that oscillates
back and forth in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. Seiche waves may be caused by earthquakes, and the project is in an area with high seismic activity. Although the project is not in an identified seiche zone, earthquake ground shaking could cause seiche waves in the new pools that could
potentially splash out and cause flooding inside the facility. The pools are relatively small and seiche waves within the pools would not be likely be large enough to cause damage. The project would follow the geotechnical recommendations during design and construction to ensure seismic stability. Therefore,
impacts from seiche waves would be less than significant. The project is not located in a tsunami zone; therefore, no impact from tsunami waves would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant. The proposed project will abide by all requirements of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and the Municipal Regional Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The project would not conflict with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin because it would comply with all applicable requirements of the MRP. The project site is not located in a groundwater basin and would not directly use groundwater; therefore, it would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52
XI. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site is located in Orange Memorial Park, which is an urban City park. The site is zoned as Parks and Recreation (PR) under the City’s General Plan and zoning code. Surrounding land uses are predominantly Parks and Recreation, Low Density Residential (RL), Medium Density Residential (RM) Downtown Residential – Low (DRL), Downtown Residential – Medium (DRM), and High Density Residential (RH) (City of South San Francisco 2023f).
The project would replace an existing aquatic center and parking lot with a new aquatic center and parking lot in an existing City park. Therefore, the project would not change the nature of land uses or physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. The project fulfills the City’s 2040 General Plan Policy PR-7.6, which seeks to modernize the aquatics facilities at
Orange Memorial Park and expand the pools in order to enable the expansion of aquatics programming. The project also includes EV charging stations (Policy PR-7.11) and integrates sustainable landscape strategies (Policy PR-7.8) including planting 36 trees, using low-water landscaping, and using green
infrastructure for stormwater capture.
The project is located in the Airport Influence Area of San Francisco International Airport, in the 14 CFR Part 77 Subpart C. Conical Surface zone and the Outer Boundary for TERPS approach OEI departure
surfaces. As discussed in Section 3.IX(e), both areas define the safe height of structures in the zones. In both cases, the safe height is more than 150 feet above ground surface. The new aquatic center would be approximately 30 feet in height; therefore, the project would be well below the imaginary airspace surfaces and no impact would occur.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations and no impact would occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53
XII. Mineral Resources
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project site is located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally important mineral resource, if a project would convert an existing or future regionally important mineral extraction use to another use, or if a project would affect access to a site
used or potentially available for regionally important mineral resource extraction.
The project is not located in a mineral resource zone identified by the state (Stinson et al. 1982). Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources of statewide or regional significance would occur.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project were located in an area used or available for extraction of a locally important mineral resource and the project converted an existing or potential future locally important mineral extraction use to another use, or if a project affected access to a site in use or potentially available for locally important mineral resource extraction.
The project is located in a City park in the middle of an urban area. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is identified as an area containing mineral deposits of local significance in the City’s 2040 General Plan. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources of local significance would occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54
XIII. Noise
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
Municipal Code Chapter 8.32 sets regulations for exterior noise levels (Section 8.32.030). Maximum permissible sound levels in Table 3 are the standards for a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour.
The maximum allowable noise level is determined by the land use category of the nearest sensitive receptor properties. The Noise Ordinance limits noise levels in single-family or multiple-family residential areas to 60 decibels (dBA) between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Section 8.32.030(a) states it is unlawful for any person to operate any source of sound at any location within the City, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
1. The noise level standard for the specified land use for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;
2. The noise level standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;
3. The noise level standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;
4. The noise level standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or
5. The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus 20 dB for any period of time.
Table 3. Noise Level Standards
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
Single-family or duplex residential 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
Multiple-family residential or mixed residential/commercial 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
Commercial districts 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 60
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
Parks districts 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 70
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 70
dB = decibels
Source: South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.030 (2023)
Municipal Code Section 8.32.040 regulates interior noise limits for multifamily residential property. Section 8.32.050(d) indicates that a noise level more than 10 dB above the level allowed by Section 8.32.030 measured 3 feet from any wall, floor, or ceiling inside any unit on the same property when the
windows and doors of the unit are closed is unallowable.
The City’s Municipal Code Section 8.32.050 allows construction activities that are authorized by a valid City permit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on Saturdays, and between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Other hours may be authorized by the construction permit if the project meets one of the following criteria:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of
25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible; or
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB (Municipal Code Section 8.32.050).
According to Municipal Code Section 8.32.060, Exception Permits, if the applicant can show to the City Manager, or the Manager’s designee, that a diligent investigation of available noise abatement techniques indicates that immediate compliance with the requirements of this chapter would be impracticable or unreasonable, a permit to allow exception from the provisions contained in this chapter may be issued, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public determinant caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short a duration as possible, but in no case for longer than 6 months. These permits
are renewable upon a showing of good cause, and shall be conditioned by a schedule for compliance and details of compliance methods in appropriate cases.
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project would result in a significant impact if it would:
1. Allow construction to occur outside of hours specified in the permit,
2. Produce construction noise in excess of 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet or exceed 90 dB at any
point outside the property plane of the project, or
3. Produce operational noise in excess of 60 dB at neighboring residential properties.
Residences, schools, hotels, child care facilities, and convalescent facilities are typically considered noise
sensitive land uses. The nearest potential residential receptors to the project site are single-family homes and duplexes located approximately 70 feet north on Tennis Drive, 80 feet north on Circle Court, 100 feet east on Amberwood Circle, and 140 feet northeast on Railroad Avenue. In addition, recreational users of the children’s playground facility immediately west, users of the Fernekes Building approximately 150
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56
feet southwest (including spring and summer camps), and playing fields south of the project would be subjected to construction noise. The maximum ambient sound levels within residential land use areas are
assumed to be less than 65 dBA (City of South San Francisco 2010).
Primary noise sources within the vicinity of the project site include vehicle traffic from El Camino Real and local street traffic from W. Orange Avenue, Tennis Drive, North Canal Street, Circle Court, Railroad
Avenue, surrounding roadways, and outdoor recreational uses. Secondary noise sources include aircraft overflights from SFO, distant train noise from approximately Caltrain (0.9 mile to the east), and distant traffic noise from U.S. Highway 101 (approximately 1 mile to the east).
Project construction would include use of standard construction equipment, including excavators, graders, tractors, loaders, pavers, jackhammers, hoe rams, and cement trucks (Table 4). No pile driving is proposed. Noise from project construction would come from two general sources. Vehicles carrying the construction crew commuting to the site, as well as truck transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. In addition, use of heavy construction equipment and hand tools during construction would incrementally increase noise levels on the site. Worker commute and truck trips would result in intermittent noise increases on local roads but would not affect long-term ambient noise levels.
The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, excavation, grading, and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential
phases would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐related noise ranges to be
categorized by work phase. Louder types of construction equipment include graders, scrapers, and auger drill rigs as well as concrete saws, concrete grinders and hoe rams (see Table 4). The loudest phase of construction would likely be the demolition of the existing pool facility, followed by the excavation and grading phases.
Table 4. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Construction Equipment Noise Level (dB Lmax1 at 50 feet)
Air compressor 78
Backhoe 78
Chain saw 84
Compactor 84
Concrete grinder 90
Concrete mixer truck 79
Concrete saw 90
Crane 81
Dozer 82
Dump truck 76
Flat bed truck 74
Front end loader 79
Generator 81
Grader 85
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57
Construction Equipment Noise Level (dB Lmax1 at 50 feet)
Hoe ram 90
Jackhammer 89
Paver 77
Roller 80
Scraper 84
Lmax is the instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time.
Source: Federal Highway Administration (2006)
For the proposed project, the combined loudest pieces of equipment , during demolition and grading
could reach 90 dBA outside the property plane of the construction activity (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT]/Federal Highway Administration 2006), which is the noise limit defined in the City code . These higher noise levels could be generated during (1) the use of concrete saws and hoe ram during demolition of the old pool facility, and (2) the use of earth-moving equipment and excavation activities and grading.
If a valid City permit is obtained, construction activities would comply with the South San Francisco Noise Regulations, as long as no individual piece of equipment produces noise levels that exceed the construction noise limit of 90 dB at the property line.
Since the project would replace an existing pool complex, operational noise would not vary significantly
from the existing conditions.
With implementation of the following Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels that are in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1:
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce construction noise impacts:
a. Secure a valid City permit for construction noise levels that could potentially temporarily exceed 90 dB at the park’s property line in order to comply with the South San Francisco Noise Regulations.
b. Construction equipment and haul trucks shall use the best available noise control techniques, including improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating barriers, curtains, and shields.
c. Site stationary noise sources, such as air compressors and generators, as far from adjacent
sensitive receptors as possible. These sources shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or incorporate insulation barriers, shields, or other attenuating measures.
d. If impact equipment and machinery are used such as jack hammers, pavement breakers, and
rock drills, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with air compressors or pneumatically powered tools. If the use of pneumatically powered tools is necessary, an exhaust muffler shall be installed on the air compressor. Such a muffler can
lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to 10 dBA. Similarly, the installation of external jackets on the tools can reduce noise levels by 5 dBA.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58
e. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment, staging, and parking areas shall be located as far as possible from noise sensitive receptors (i.e. adjacent tot lot and summer camps in the
Ferneke Building.
f. Identify a liaison that represents the property owners located adjacent to the project site along Tennis Drive. This liaison shall be contacted with concerns regarding construction noise. The liaison’s contact information shall be clearly displayed at the construction location on posted signs informing the public of the construction hours and the liaison to contact in the event of a noise-related problem.
g. Notify all adjacent landowners and occupants of the properties adjacent to the project site of the anticipated construction schedule at least 2 weeks prior to ground-disturbing activities.
h. Hold a pre-construction meeting with the Contractor Superintendent, General Contractor, and City inspectors to confirm that all noise mitigation measures (including signage on construction hours, valid City exception permit, and liaison contact information) are completed.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant. Groundborne vibration is the perceptible movement of building floors, rattling windows, and doors, shaking of items on shelves or walls, and rumbling sounds. For groundborne vibration, according to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines, a vibration level of 65
vibration decibels (VdB) is the threshold of perceptibility for humans.5 For a significant impact to occur, vibration levels must exceed 80 VdB during infrequent events (USDOT/FTA 2018). Construction activities (e.g., ground-disturbing activities, including movement of heavy construction equipment and
hauling of demolition debris and soil from the project site) may generate localized groundborne vibration and noise. Blasting or pile-driving activities would not occur during construction of the project. A hoe ram, jackhammers and concrete saws would be used during demolition of the existing parking lot and
pool building. A vibratory roller would be used for parking lot construction. Generally, construction-related groundborne vibration is not expected to extend beyond 25 feet from the generating source.
Construction equipment for demolition of the existing parking lot and pool building which could include jackhammers, concrete saws, and a compactor machine (vibratory pad or drum roller). The closest sensitive receptors are residences approximately 75 feet from the northern edge of the project area. The activities closest to the adjacent residences include the movement of haul trucks. Hauling of soils and debris could generate vibrations along local haul routes. Assuming the use of 12-cubic-yard dump trucks, the project is anticipated to require a total of approximately 875 round-trip trucks trips to offhaul soil and demolition debris over the 18-month construction period. The maximum haul trips per day would likely be 8 one-way trips per day during the parking lot demolition and building demolition phases. The movement of up to 8 haul trucks per day would not generate significant amounts of groundborne
vibration, therefore this impact would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
Less than Significant. The nearest airport to the project site is SFO, located approximately 2.1 miles to
the southeast. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, aircraft noise from SFO is the primary source of
5 VdB is the vibration velocity level expressed in decibels relative to 1 micro-inch per second (1 × 10-6 inch per second).
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59
transportation noise in the City. The project site is located within the SFO ALUCP Airport Influence Area B (Figure 6), which is based on a combination of the outer boundaries of the noise compatibility and
airport safety zones (C/CAG 2012). However, the project site is located outside the aircraft noise exposure contour (CNEL Contour; see Figure 6). Therefore, because the project is outside the airport noise exposure contour and would not introduce residents or employees to the area, it would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels associated with the nearby airport and noise impacts would be less than significant.
d) Population and Housing
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)?
No Impact. City and county General Plans develop growth plans and projections for the areas in their jurisdictions. A significant impact would occur if a project included a General Plan amendment that could
result in an increase in population over that projected in the adopted General Plan, or if a project would induce substantial growth on the project site or surrounding area.
Construction job opportunities created as a result of the project are not expected to result in any
substantial population growth in the area. The work requirements of most construction projects are highly specialized so that construction workers remain at a job site only for the time frame during which their specific skills are needed. Additionally, the construction workers would likely be supplied from the region’s labor pool. Construction workers would not be likely to relocate their household as a consequence of working on the project, and as such, significant housing or population impacts would not result from construction of the project. Therefore, there would be no construction-related population
growth impacts and no impact would occur.
The project would replace an existing aquatics center and parking lot and reconfigure existing soccer fields; therefore, while the aquatics center will be able to offer additional programs, the project is not likely to attract more people to Orange Memorial Park and the surrounding area or cause people to move to the area. Therefore, the project would not introduce new persons to the population, and no impact would occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project would replace an existing aquatics center and parking lot and reconfigure existing soccer fields. Therefore, the project would not displace people or housing, and no impact would occur.
XIV. Public Services
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
No Impact. The project would replace an existing aquatics center and parking lot and reconfigure existing soccer fields; therefore, it would not increase the population in the area or introduce a hazard. A significant impact may occur if the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) could not adequately
serve a project, and a new or physically altered fire station would be necessary. The project area receives fire protection services from the SSFFD. The SSFFD has three fire stations. The project site is in the response area for Fire Station 61, which is located at 480 North Canal Street, approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project site. In addition, Fire Station 63 is located at 33 Arroyo Drive, approximately 0.57 mile west of the project site (City of South San Francisco 2023h). The project would not increase population or cause a marked increase in recreational users, and no impact to fire protection services would occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61
Police protection?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the South San Francisco Police Department (Police Department) could not adequately serve a project, and a new or physically altered police station would be necessary. The project area receives law enforcement services from the Patrol Division of the Police Department. The Patrol Division consists of 40 officers and four patrol beats covering 11 square miles of
the City. The Police Station located at 1 Chestnut Avenue is located approximately 0.4 mile west of the project site (City of South San Francisco 2023i).
The project would replace an existing aquatic center and parking lot and reconfigure existing soccer fields; therefore, it would not increase the population in the area or introduce a hazard. The project would not cause an appreciable increase in recreational users. Therefore, the project would not increase the demand for public services, including police protection, and no impacts to police protection would occur.
Schools?
No impact. The project area is served by the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). A significant impact may occur if the SSFUSD could not adequately serve a project, and a new or physically altered school or schools would be necessary. The SSFUSD has nine elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and an adult education program. Between 2011 and 2021, the enrollment declined by 1,306 students. Enrollment projections between 2021 and 2030 show an expected decrease in student population from 8,006 students to 6,759 students; a decrease of 1,247 or approximately 15.6 percent (South San Francisco Unified School District 2022).
The project would replace an existing aquatic center and parking lot and reconfigure existing soccer fields; therefore, it would not increase the population in the area or cause a marked increase in recreational users. The project would not increase the demand for public services, including schools, and
no impact would occur.
Parks?
Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if the project would result in the need for new or
improved parks.
The Orange Pool is the only indoor municipal swimming pool in the City. The pool operates year-round and 7 days a week. The existing pool was constructed in 1970, and prior to the pandemic, public demand for aquatic programs has grown year over year, well beyond the pool’s capacity. The pool has exceeded the typical lifespan for such facilities and is due for replacement (City of South San Francisco 2023c). The new facility would include two pools—an outdoor, 25-yard, cool water lap pool and an indoor, warm water, teaching/recreation pool—and would enable the City to expand offerings of recreation activities in the aquatic center. The existing pool would remain in use until the new pool is completed and would then
be demolished.
While the project would remove a portion of the existing soccer field area, reducing the total area of grass field area, by about 7,200 square feet, the remaining grass field would be retained and continued to be
designed for recreation use, including soccer practices and games. The project would also temporarily fence the entire soccer field area for use as a staging area during construction. The field would be returned to existing conditions after project completion.
Therefore, the proposed project would improve access and opportunities at the aquatic center, continue to provide grass fields for recreation, and would not create a need for new or improved parks. This impact would be less than significant.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62
Other public facilities?
No impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would result in the need for other new or improved public facilities. Other public facilities include the Community Civic Campus, which includes a new Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center, South San Francisco Main Library, Community Theater/Council Chamber, and Parks and Recreation facilities.
The project would replace an existing aquatics center at Orange Memorial Park and reconfigure existing soccer fields. It would not increase the population in the area or cause an increase in recreational users. Therefore, the project would not increase the demand for public services, including libraries, theater, or other uses, and no impact would occur.
XV. Recreation
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
(a) Would the project 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant. A project would result in a significant impact to parks and recreation services if it would result in a significant increase in population from adding residential units. The project would replace an existing aquatic center and reconfigure existing soccer fields. It would not increase the population in the area or cause an increase in recreational users. It would allow an expansion of services at the aquatic center and allow the facility to serve more residents.
As noted in Section X, while the project would permanently remove a portion of the existing soccer field area, reducing the total area of grass field by about 7,200 square feet, the remaining grass field would be retained and continued to be designed for recreation use, including soccer practices and games. Post-project, the area would be reduced from three to two soccer fields and the two remaining fields would be improved. During the 18-month construction period, the entire field area would be fenced off and used for construction staging, so all three soccer fields would be unavailable.
The existing Orange Aquatic facility was deemed insufficient for the needs of the City’s residents. The project would more than double the available space for aquatic programs, allowing increased use for recreation, classes, and programs. Therefore, although the project would, increase the use of existing park facilities, it would not result in substantial physical deterioration and this impact would be less than
significant.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63
b) 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?
Less than Significant. The project would replace and improve existing aquatic center facilities; therefore, it would not increase the population in the area but would allow for an increase in recreational users.
Although the project would expand an existing recreational facility, it would not have a significant, adverse physical effect on the environment. As discussed in Sections 3.IV, Biological Resources, 3.V, Cultural Resources, 3.VII, Geology and Soils, and 3.XVII, Tribal Cultural Resources, all potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation incorporated into the project. The project would allow the City to expand recreation at the new aquatic facility, but this would not change the operational impacts of the existing pool, and this impact would be less than significant.
XVI. Transportation
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
REGIONAL AND LOCAL ACCESS
Regional access is provided by Highways 101 and 280, El Camino Real, Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, and Grand Avenue. Local access is provided by W. Orange Avenue and
Tennis Drive.
PUBLIC TRANSIT
The project site is served by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) Bus Route 37, which has a stop at the corner of W. Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. The bus route offers connections to Daly City, San Bruno, Alta Loma School, and Daly City Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) via Route 130. In addition, the Free South City Shuttle stops at the corner of W. Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. The Free South
City Shuttle provides a circular route within the City connecting schools, parks, the Municipal Services Building, downtown area, Kaiser Hospital, and senior centers, and provide connecting transportation to SamTrans stops and the SSF BART station (City of South San Francisco 2023j). Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations are both located approximately 1 mile east of the project.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRANSIT
Centennial Way is a 2.85-mile-long Class 1 bicycle/pedestrian trail that will eventually run from the City of Colma to the City of Millbrae. The trail crosses W. Orange Avenue approximately 0.25 mile south of the project, and connects to San Bruno BART Station, Tanforan Shopping Center, South San Francisco High School, El Camino High School, and South San Francisco BART station (City of South San
Francisco 2023b). The project would include the installation of one indoor and eight outdoor bicycle racks.
The project would include ADA-approved sidewalks and paved walkways accessing the aquatic complex. It would also improve the existing crosswalk on Tennis Drive by adding traffic calming measures for pedestrian safety (see Figure 3).
ADA/EV PARKING
There is an existing parking lot on the north side of Tennis Drive accessible by a crosswalk across Tennis Drive. The project includes a new parking and drop-off area with six ADA parking stalls, two EV charging stalls, and five regular parking stalls (see Figure 3).
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant. The City’s General Plan Mobility Element includes policies and actions designed to incorporate complete streets improvements into all roadway and development projects, incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into capital projects, address ADA accessibility, expand the low-
stress bike and pedestrian network, and expand bicycle parking at major activity centers. The project would include a new parking lot with ADA and EV parking. It would be adjacent to a SamTrans bus stop, providing access to public transit. It would be 0.25 mile from the Centennial Way bicycle and pedestrian
path, with access via W. Orange Avenue. The project would include a total of nine bicycle racks.
Project construction would result in vehicle worker trips, haul trips, and vendor trips. The cut and fill could generate a total of about 875 haul trips over the construction period – 808 haul trips during
construction of the new aquatic center, and 67 trips during the demolition of the existing pool building. The increase in traffic as a result of worker and haul trips would increase traffic at nearby traffic intersections and roadway segments. The project would obtain encroachment permits which would include a Traffic Control Plan. In addition, haul and vendor trips would primarily occur during off-peak hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.).
The project is on a transit line and would include improvements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, ADA parking, and traffic calming measures; therefore, the project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and this impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant. The new 2019 State CEQA Guidelines require analysis of impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a result of a project. VMT is the amount and distance of automobile traffic attributable to a project. The City’s General Plan includes goals to reduce VMT and GHG
emissions. This analysis is based on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Trip Generation Assessment provided by Kittleson & Associates (July 17, 2023) (Table 5). The analysis is based on trip generation from the number of lap lanes in the existing pool (six lanes) versus the new pools (17 lanes).
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65
Table 5. Trip Generation
Pedestrian Group Counts1
(Existing)
Pedestrian Group Counts1
to Proposed Site
(Projected)
Net New Project Trips
Pool Size 6 Lap Lanes 17 Lap Lanes
Group Counts
Weekday Daily Trips 238 674 436
Saturday Daily Trips 538 1,524 986
Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips 35 100 65
Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 67 190 123
Saturday Peak Hour Trips 99 281 182
1 Pedestrian Groups are the number of groups of people entering the pool facility.
The assumption for the VMT analysis is that the demand for swimming is likely already present but residents are using other pools further away, due to limited capacity at the existing pool. An expanded Orange Pool facility will provide additional classes and opportunities for recreational swimmers closer to the City to better meet the demand from South San Francisco residents. Vehicle trip generation is
anticipated to increase since both the pool size and number of lap lanes will increase by more than double with the new pool compared to the old pool. The increase in vehicle trip generation is conservatively estimated at 65 trips in the weekday AM peak hour, 123 trips in the weekday PM peak hour, and 182 on a
Saturday peak hour. Overall, total daily vehicle trip generation is projected to increase by about 436 on weekdays and 986 on weekends.
The development of the project will reduce the overall contribution of pool trips to regional VMT because
residents of South San Francisco will be able to use their local pool which has fewer capacity constraints to meet their swimming needs rather than traveling farther away to pools in other communities like the Brisbane Community Pool or the Jean E. Brink Swimming Pool in Pacifica. This reduces the overall trip length for South San Francisco residents, which will reduce regional VMT. Regional VMT with the project is estimated to decrease because an expanded Orange Pool will provide additional capacity to better meet the needs of residents of South San Francisco who will be able to drive to a more local pool rather than one farther away, reducing trip length and VMT. Therefore, the project would not be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines regarding VMT, and this impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The project does not include any design features that would increase hazards. The project would replace an existing aquatic center and parking area in a public park. The new parking area would provide additional spaces for ADA parking close to the pool complex. The project would also traffic calming measures for the crosswalk that crosses Tennis Drive. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant. A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations used for emergency access or evacuation or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the emergency access.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66
During short-term construction activities including the associated roadway improvements, partial or complete road closures may be required along both Tennis Drive and W. Orange Avenue to accommodate
utility trenching for installation of storm drains, domestic water, and fire water lines. Closures would not impact individual access to other properties. The City’s General Plan does not identify emergency evacuation routes. W. Orange Avenue is identified as an arterial boulevard and Tennis Drive is identified as a collector street (City of South San Francisco 2022a).
During the construction phase, the City would require an encroachment permit for any temporary activities that would affect the public right-of-way. Encroachment permit conditions would include a traffic control plan with temporary procedures for emergency access. Additionally, in the event of partial lane closures, sufficient alternative routes exist near the facility and the project would not interfere or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency service, and this impact would be less than significant.
XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
(a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
At the time of the initial European contact with the Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay area, Costanoans (from the Spanish costaños, or “coast people”), members of the Penutian linguistic family, inhabited the area from the Carquinez Strait and the northern tip of the San Francisco Peninsula to the region south of Monterey Bay and east to the Diablo Range. These Native Americans called themselves
Ohlone, entered the Bay Area approximately 1,500 years ago. They came from the Delta region and displaced earlier Hokan speakers. An estimated 7,000 to 10,000 Native Americans lived near San Francisco Bay by the time of European contact in the 18th century. According to the City’s General Plan
EIR and consistent with the City’s historic as an Ohlone settlement location, there are Native American village sites and archaeological sites scattered around the City of South San Francisco. Known resources
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67
occur along the El Camino Real corridor, in the San Bruno Mountains, and adjacent to portions of Colma Creek.
AB 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes in the CEQA process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups when a decision to undertake a project or determination that a project is complete (e.g., prior to the release of a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report), lead agencies are required to notify tribes who previously requested placement on the notification list. On June 23, 2023, the City provided formal notification in writing to eight separate Native American groups. After 30 days, none of the tribes requested AB52 consultation.
During the preparation of the Cultural Resources Technical Report, a search of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested on April 26, 2023, with the intent of identifying culturally sensitive areas and obtaining a list of Native American contacts who may have specific knowledge of the vicinity. The NAHC response was received on May 18, 2023, and provided a negative result (there were no identified Sacred Lands onsite) and a list of eight Native American tribes and individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. SWCA sent outreach letters via email to all Native American contacts on May 30, 2023, with hard copies
followed by regular mail on June 2, 2023. Follow-up telephone calls were made by SWCA on June 2 and June 8, 2023. Chairperson Irene Zwierlein of the Amah Mutsun Band of Mission San Juan Bautista requested that all persons be aware that railroads were historically built on Native burial grounds.
Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan requested the CHRIS results, final report, and the evolution and development of the project area, which was provided by SWCA in an email to Chairperson Sayers. Kanyon Sayers Roods responded via email that the project area
overlaps or is near the management boundary of a potentially eligible cultural site and that she would like to consult on the project. Thereafter, Kanyon Sayers Roods was reached by phone by the City on September 6, 2023. In that conversation a request was made by Kanyon Sayers Roods for worker
awareness training covering tribal cultural resources, and that a Native American monitor from a local tribe be present following the event of the inadvertent discovery of a prehistoric archaeological resource to monitor the treatment of that resource. These requests are reflected in Mitigation Measure TCR – 1, below. The remainder of the telephone calls went unanswered.
It was concluded that the project area intersects a portion of an archaeological site, a historic-era segment of rail line that once connected the two northern branches of the Southern Pacific Railroad; the rail line ran from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The segment of the rail line intersecting the project area is located in the northeast portion of the project area adjacent to Tennis Drive. This segment was recorded on July 19, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city of South San Francisco and recommended the resource as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the or the California
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) due to a lack of historic integrity resulting from modern development. During the current survey for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center project, it was noted that this segment had been completely removed.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either
a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a-i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or in another local register. According to the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File while project site vicinity was once was documented as a historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city of South San Francisco, was determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the or the CRHR due to a lack of historic integrity resulting from modern development. This segment was subsequently completely removed. There are no other Native American tribal heritage sites recorded within the proposed project
site or vicinity.
After notification for formal consultation, the City received one request for consultation from the Indian Canyon Band Mutsun Band of Costanoan Indians. Given the negative results of the NAHC Sacred Lands
File Search and the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Cultural Resources report (June 2023), and the existing disturbed environment of the Project site, it was concluded that the proposed Project would have a less- than-significant impact on tribal cultural resources with implementation of Mitigation Measure
TCR-1, which would be implemented in the event that unanticipated prehistoric cultural resources (or TCRs) are exposed during project construction.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1:
The following measures shall be implemented prior to project implementation and in the event that unanticipated prehistoric cultural resources or TCRs are exposed during project construction:
a. All construction staff must receive worker environment awareness training (WEAP) that identifies the identification and proper treatment of tribal cultural resources. In the event that unanticipated prehistoric cultural resources are exposed during disturbance activities, work within 15 meters (50 feet) of the find (Find Site) must stop and the California Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted to identify a local Native American tribal member to provide monitoring inspection of any further construction work at the Find Site.
Work may not resume at the Find Site until a tribal member is present to provide monitoring inspection.
a-ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The City of South San Francisco has considered the significance of potential tribal cultural resources on the project site and vicinity to Native American Tribes. Based on
the reasons that results of the NAHC Sacred Lands Files Search were negative and with implementation
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69
of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, as summarized above, impacts on tribal resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
WATER
Less than Significant. Water for project construction and operation is supplied by the California Water Service, South San Francisco Division (CalWater), and the majority of their supply (80 percent) is purchased from San Francisco Regional Water System (SF RWS). The remaining water is drawn from
local groundwater wells. CalWater serves 63,702 people in an 11.2-square-mile area, which has an average demand of 5.88 million gallons per day (mgd) (BAWSCA 2023). CalWater has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 35.68 mgd, or approximately 39,993 acre-feet per year, which is shared among its
Bear Gulch, Mid-Peninsula, and South San Francisco Districts, from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). In addition to the water from the SFPUC, CalWater obtains a maximum of approximately 1.37 mgd or 1,534 acre-feet per year, from local sources in the Westside Groundwater Basin during a non-drought year. The Westside Groundwater Basin is categorized by the DWR as a very low priority basin and is actively managed to prevent significant overdraft (CalWater 2021). Between
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70
2016 and 2020, CalWater supplied an average of 6,837 acre-feet per year of potable water (CalWater 2021).
Construction activities would require a minimal amount of water for dust control and cement mixing. Water would be delivered to the project site by water truck. Since the project would replace one existing pool with two new pools, water use at the aquatic center would approximately double and the total
volume of both pools would be approximately 450,425 gallons or 1.38 acre-feet, less than 0.02 percent of an average year water demand. Project operation would use water for backwashing the pool filters. The filters are backwashed approximately once every 2 weeks and use approximately 9,290 gallons of water with each event. Tanks are backwashed one at a time. Each tank would use approximately 241,540 gallons or 0.74 AF in a year, which is approximately 0.01 percent Therefore, the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities, and this impact would be less than significant.
WASTEWATER
Less than Significant. Wastewater treatment is provided by South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (SSWQCP), which is located along Colma Creek near San Francisco Bay. It receives an average dry weather flow of approximately 9 mgd and has capacity to treat up to 13 mgd in
average dry weather flow. Peak wet weather flows can exceed 60 mgd (City of South San Francisco 2023k). The plant last experienced flows that exceeded maximum peak wet weather capacity on December 31, 2022 (City of South San Francisco 2023l).
Construction of the project would produce minimal wastewater from construction crew use of portable toilets. The project would add new restroom and shower facilities as well as two pools in the new aquatic center, and demolish pool, restroom, and shower facilities associated with the existing pool building.
Since the new aquatic center includes two pools and additional restroom and shower facilities, it is likely to serve more residents and therefore create more wastewater from restroom and shower use. Filters would be backwashed approximately once every 2 weeks, creating approximately 9,290 gallons of
wastewater each time, which is approximately 0.1 percent of the dry weather flow capacity. Therefore, the additional volume of wastewater produced from the pool facility would be minimal.
Operation of the project would produce a minimal permanent change in wastewater production, and the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, therefore this impact would be less than significant.
STORMWATER
Less than Significant. The project would include a total of approximately 17,215 square feet of new impervious surface area, which would drain to new LID stormwater treatment and retention facilities on-site. Overflow would drain to the existing storm drain in W. Orange Avenue and eventually to Colma Creek. The project would include drainage improvements that meet the requirements of the SMCWPPP to prevent sediment-laden runoff to Colma Creek. Therefore, project operation would not create a need for new stormwater facilities, and this impact would be less than significant.
The Applicant would be required to implement a SWPPP under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit6 and the SMCWPPP during project construction (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2022). The
SWPPP must include site-specific BMPs that are designed to prevent runoff from construction areas to
6 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order
No. R2-2015-0049. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. Available at: https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/images/uploads/R2-2015-0049.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2021.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71
reduce potential impacts to surface water quality during project construction. The plan would also include design elements and BMPs for construction areas, such as fueling and equipment washing areas, and trash
and hazardous material storage areas. Therefore, impacts related to stormwater runoff during construction would be less than significant.
GAS AND ELECTRICITY
Less than Significant. Electric power services are provided by Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The City automatically enrolled all residents and businesses in PCE in 2016 in an effort to reduce GHG emissions and combat global warming, and offers the option to remain using PG&E as an energy provider. PCE purchases electricity directly from renewable energy sources, and PG&E delivers the electricity to homes and businesses using its existing transmission and distribution lines (City of South San Francisco 2023f). PG&E additionally provides the City’s natural gas.
The project would have new electrical demands associated with the new and enlarged aquatic center. The project would be all-electric and would include rooftop solar panels to help supply electricity. The project would result in either a small increase or a net decrease in existing electricity use because of the solar panels; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
The project would be all electric and would remove existing gas infrastructure; therefore, no impact related to natural gas use would occur.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Less than Significant. The project would replace the existing aquatic center and extend new telecommunications infrastructure to the facility; however, it would not appreciably change existing telecommunications use. Therefore, no impact related to telecommunications infrastructure would occur.
The existing park facilities are served by all public utilities. The new aquatic center would replace the
existing pool and would tie into the same water, sewer, and storm drain lines through new laterals. The project would be all electric and would not include the use of natural gas. The project would also include solar panels to supply electricity. The project would tie into existing electrical and
telecommunications facilities. The project would not require the construction or relocation of new or expanded water, wastewater, storm drain, electric power, or telecommunications facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant. The aquatic center is served by CalWater, South San Francisco District. As discussed above, 80 percent of CalWater’s supply for their South San Francisco District is purchased from the San Francisco Regional Water System and originates in the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, and the remaining 20 percent is drawn from local groundwater wells. In 2019, the SWRCB adopted amendments to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan that increased flows in the Tuolumne River in order to
protect Bay-Delta water quality (SWRCB 2019). As a result, the SFPUC, which oversees the San Francisco Regional Water System, needs to find additional water to meet projected demand, particularly in drought years. The SFPUC is currently working on a Voluntary Settlement Agreement with the state,
as well as pursuing an Alternative Supply Program with a number of alternative sources of supply, both within San Francisco and in partnership with other agencies, that could provide additional water to meet current and future obligations. In the meantime, supply and demand projections are based on the currently
adopted amendment (SFPUC 2023).
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72
As required by the DWR, CalWater has analyzed the long-term reliability and vulnerability of its water supplies and developed a combination of supply alternatives and conservation planning efforts to meet the
water supply needs of its customers in the South San Francisco District. CalWater has developed water supply estimates for normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios based on the existing Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Table 6 shows the projected water balance for a normal dry year through 2045. Table 7 shows the water balance for the first 5 years of a multiple dry year sequence under the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (CalWater 2021). As shown in Table 6, CalWater has adequate water supplies to meet a normal year demand.
Table 6. Water Supply and Demand Estimates for Normal Water Years In Acre Feet (DWR Table 7-
2)
Drought Year Supply/Demand Totals* 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year Supply Totals 7,543 7,483 7,635 8,000 8,423
Demand Totals2 7,543 7,483 7,635 8,000 8,423
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
* All numbers are in million gallons per year.
Source: CalWater (2021), Table 7-3. Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-2).
As shown in Table 7, CalWater’s multiple dry year supplies are not adequate to meet projected multiple dry year demands. Significant supply shortfalls, ranging from 29 to 38 percent in the first year of the 5-
year dry period to 36 to 45 percent in the fifth year of the 5-year dry period, are projected. The water supply projections presented above likely represent a worst-case scenario in which the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented without the SFPUC and the SWRCB reaching a Voluntary Agreement and
does not account for implementation of SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Program.
Table 7. CalWater Water Supply and Demand Estimates for Multiple Dry Years (DWR Table 7-4)
Drought Year Supply/Demand Totals* 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year Supply Totals 5,678 5,636 5,739 5,917 5,534
Demand Totals 8,009 7,943 8,104 8,429 8,940
Difference -2,331 -2,307 -2,365 -2,574 -3,406
Second Year Supply Totals 5,095 5,059 5,082 5,291 5,534
Demand Totals 8,009 7,943 8,104 8,429 8,940
Difference -2,914 -2,884 -3,022 -3,138 -3,406
Third Year Supply Totals 5,095 5,059 5,082 5,291 5,534
Demand Totals 8,009 7,943 8,104 8,429 8,940
Difference -2,914 -2,884 -3,022 -3,138 -3,406
Fourth Year Supply Totals 5,095 5,059 5,082 4,874 4,941
Demand Totals 8,009 7,943 8,104 8,429 8,940
Difference -2,914 -2,884 -3,022 -3,555 -3,999
Fifth Year Supply Totals 5,095 5,059 5,082 4,874 4,941
Demand Totals 8,009 7,943 8,104 8,429 8,940
Difference -2,914 -2,884 -3,022 -3,555 -3,999
* All numbers are in acre-feet per year.
Source: CalWater (2021), Table 7-5. Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-4).
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73
The new pool complex with two pools will approximately double the existing water use. The outdoor pool would have a capacity of approximately 277,161 gallons and the indoor pool capacity would be
approximately 173,264 gallons (see Design Plans, pp. 161 and 167, Appendix A). The total capacity would be 450,425 gallons or 1.38 acre-feet. This is less than 0.02 percent of total water demand in an average year. Project operation would use water for backwashing the pool filters. The filters are backwashed approximately once every 2 weeks and use approximately 9,290 gallons of water with each event. Tanks are backwashed one at a time. Each tank would use approximately 241,540 gallons or 0.74 AF in a year, which is less than 0.001 percent of the average demand and supply of a normal water year (Table 6). Therefore, the new pool complex would represent a minor increase in water demand and this impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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?
Less than Significant. As discussed under Section 3.XVIII(a), SSWQCP receives average dry weather flow of approximately 9 mgd and has a wastewater treatment plant capacity of up to 13 mgd in average dry weather flow (City of South San Francisco 2023l). The project would result in an increase in existing
pool, restroom, and shower uses at the Orange Pool Aquatic Center that would result in a relatively minor increase in wastewater production. However, the project would not result in an increase in residences or employment that would bring more people to the area, and wastewater production increases related to
pool use would be small; therefore, impacts related to increased wastewater production would be less than significant.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant. Solid waste pickup is provided to the project area and City by South San
Francisco Scavenger Company, which provides pickup of residential and commercial garbage, recyclable material, organic waste, and food waste, and diverts construction and demolition debris, wood waste, plastics, commercial food waste and other materials for recycling (South San Francisco Scavenger Company 2023a). Scavenger also operates a state-of-the-art transfer station and materials recovery facility (South San Francisco Scavenger Company 2023b) as well as an anaerobic digestor facility that processes organic waste to compressed renewable natural gas for use in the company’s collection trucks (South San Francisco Scavenger Company 2018).
Solid waste is transported to the Corinda Los Trancos Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill for recycling, composting, and disposal (Everything South City 2021). The landfill is permitted to receive 3,598 tons of waste per day and has an anticipated closure date of 2034 (CalRecycle 2017).7 In the second quarter of 2019, the landfill received an average of 160,253 tons of solid waste (approximately 1,780 tons per day, or 49 percent of its permitted throughput).
The project would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.60.030, Diversion Requirements, which requires contractors to divert construction and demolition debris in a manner that
complies with the California Green Building Standards Code. In particular, the project must submit and follow a Waste Management Plan that includes the following:
7 Asphalt or concrete construction debris is approximately 2,400 pounds per cubic yard. Dry earth construction debris is
approximately 2,100 pounds per cubic yard. Reference: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2018. Solid Waste Cleanup Program Weights and Volumes for Project Estimates. Available at: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/cdi/tools/calculations. Accessed October 21, 2021.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74
• Deconstruct and salvage all or part of the structure, as practicable;
• Direct 100 percent of inert solids to reuse and recycling facilities; and
• Either:
o Take all mixed construction and demolition debris to mixed construction and demolition debris recycling facilities approved by the City and take all sorted or crushed construction and demolition debris to approved facilities, or
o Source separate noninert materials such as cardboard and paper, wood, metals, green waste, new gypsum wallboard, tile, porcelain fixtures, and other easily recycled materials, and direct them to recycling facilities approved by the City and take the remainder to a facility for disposal. In this option, calculations must be provided to show that the minimum amount of debris as specified by Section 4.408 of Chapter 4 of CALGreen has been diverted. (Ord. 1532 § 1, 2017)
The landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 45 million cubic yards and is expected to operate until 2034 (CalRecycle 2023). The project would divert construction and demolition debris as required, and the landfill would have adequate capacity to receive the remainder during the construction phase of the project because the construction phase of the project would be temporary and would generate a limited amount of solid waste. Development of the required Waste Management Plan would ensure this impact is less than significant.
Operation of the project would not change appreciably from operation of the existing aquatic center; therefore, the project would not generate waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant. The project would adhere to all federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Applicant would require the contractor to adhere to the
City’s Waste Management Plan for disposal of construction debris, including recycling at least 75 percent of clean asphalt and concrete. During operation, the new aquatic center would install recycling and composting waste containers to promote waste diversion from landfills, and water bottle refill stations to promote reusable water bottles. Therefore, the project would meet all City requirements for recycling during operation, and this impact would be less than significant.
XIX. Wildfire
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75
Environmental Issues Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
(c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and would pose a potential fire hazard, or affect an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in the event of a fire. CalFire maps Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), as well as Very High FHSZs in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). The project site is in an LRA and is under the jurisdiction of the South San Francisco Fire Department. There are no Very High FHSZs mapped in South San Francisco (CalFire 2008). San Bruno Mountain, 0.8 mile north of the project site, is in a Moderate FHSZ in an SRA (CalFire 2022). The project would replace an existing public pool and aquatic center with a new pool complex. It would not draw additional people to
an area subject to wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would occur and the project would not result in any impact an emergency response or evacuation plan.
Project construction would include street and/or lane closures on W. Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive.
However, the project would obtain an encroachment permit for road or lane closures and would abide by all City policies including development of a Traffic Control Plan. Therefore, the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation response plan and no impact would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The project is not located in or near SRAs or lands classified as Very High FHSZs. The project would replace an existing aquatic center in a public park and would not include elements that would exacerbate wildfire risks. No impact would occur.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The project is not located in or near SRAs or lands classified as Very High FHSZs. The project would replace an existing aquatic center in a public park and would not extend facilities that would exacerbate wildfire risks. No impact would occur.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The project is not located in or near SRAs or lands classified as Very High FHSZs. The project would replace an existing aquatic center in a public park and would not expose people or structures to significant post-fire risks. No impact would occur.
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issues Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
(a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77
Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project would replace an existing aquatic center and parking
lot and reconfigure existing soccer fields within Orange Memorial Park. The City of South San Francisco is located within the South Bay of San Mateo County and is highly urbanized. Accordingly, the potential for candidate, sensitive, or special status species or habitats is low within the City limits. As described in Section IV, Biological Resources, Section V, Cultural Resources, and the preceding analyses, no significant unmitigable impacts to the environment would result. The implementation of MM BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, MM-GEO-1, MM-NO-1, MM-HAZ-1, MM-HAZ-2 and MM
TCR-1 would minimize impacts to nesting birds, and undiscovered cultural, archeological and paleontological resources, geology and soils impacts related to ground failure , construction noise,
hazards and hazardous materials related to soil contaminants (arsenic) and building materials (lead
paint), and tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels. The project does not include significant fish or wildlife habitat or known cultural resources. Based on these findings, the City of South San Francisco hereby finds that impacts related to degradation of the environment, biological resources, and cultural resources would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
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)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Cumulative environmental impacts are multiple individual impacts that, when considered together would be considerable, or compound other environmental impacts. Individual impacts would potentially result from a single project or multiple separate projects
that would potentially occur at the same place and point in time or at different locations and over extended periods of time. The proposed project would not result in individually limited or contribute to cumulatively considerable significant impacts. As discussed in Sections I through XX, all short-term environmental issues would result in either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with the incorporation of mitigation with the implementation of the project. Construction of the proposed project could result in some short-term temporary impacts such air quality impacts from dust and engine exhaust, , impacts to nesting birds and, previously undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources, impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, construction noise, hazards related to soil contaminants (arsenic) and building materials (lead paint) and tribal cultural resources, but those would be temporary and/or less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. In summary, the Project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts related to these other issues would be less than cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based on the nature and scope of the project and the analysis of the project’s impacts, as summarized in Sections I through XX, no environmental effects have been
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78
identified in this IS/MND that would cause substantial adverse effects, either directly or indirectly, on human beings. There would be a variety of other potential effects during construction including:
• Impacts to nesting birds and federally protected waters associated with construction activities and minor tree removal (discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources)
• Adverse impacts to prehistoric cultural resources and potential unknown human remains (discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources);
• Earthwork and construction-related impacts due to the potential for liquefaction (discussed in Section VII, Geology and Soils
• Construction noise-related impacts (discussed in Section XIII, Noise)
• Impacts related to disposal of hazardous materials (discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials); and
• Adverse impacts from construction activities to Tribal Cultural Resources (discussed in Section XVII, Tribal Cultural Resources).
In addition, the project could result in exposure of nearby single-family and multi-family residences to increases in ambient noise levels and nuisances associated with temporary construction-related noise (discussed in Section XIII, Noise), which would be considered less than significant with implementation
of and compliance with local noise ordinances.
Most of these impacts would be temporary and intermittent, and all of these impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and established impact thresholds, as well as the implementation of mitigation measures. And while the proposed project could involve the handling of hazardous materials in a manner that poses, unusual risks, and any hazardous impacts associated with exposure of construction workers to potential harmful contaminants demolition debris, impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed would not result in long-term air quality or traffic hazards. Based on the analysis in this IS/MND, the City of South San Francisco finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79
4 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2023. Making Sense of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) – A Measure of Shaking. Available at: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/making_sense_of_the_modified_mercalli_intensity_scale.p
df. Accessed June 5, 2023.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Spare the Air-Cool the Climate. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2023.
———. 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Chapter 3. CEQA
Thresholds. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed July 18, 2023.
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). 2023. California Water Service – South
San Francisco District. Available at: https://bawsca.org/members/profiles/cws-san-francisco. Accessed June 14, 2023.
CAL FIRE. 2008. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. San Mateo County. Available at CAL FIRE 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Map Viewer. Available at https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4466cf1d2b9947bea1d4269997e86553. Accessed June 12, 2023.
———. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Map Viewer. Available at
https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4466cf1d2b9947bea1d4269997e86553. Accessed June 12, 2023.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2017. SWIS Facility Detail. Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed
June 29, 2023.
California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, DTSC-Modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs). Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June2020-Revised-May2022A.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2023.
———. 2023a. EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map. Accessed June 7, 2023.
———. 2023b. EnviroStor. Mantegani Site (70000073). Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=70000073. Accessed June 7, 2023.
California Department of Transportation. 2023. Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed June 8, 2023.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80
California Geological Survey. 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/. Accessed June 5, 2023.
California Water Service (CalWater). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. South San Francisco District. Available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf Accessed June 12,
2023.
City/County Associations of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco international Airport. Available at: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2023.
City of South San Francisco. 2010. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.010, Performance Standards. Available at: http://ci-ssf-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=309&meta_id=23192. Accessed July 20, 2023.
———. 2022a. City of South San Francisco 2040 General Plan. Shape SSF. Available at: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SSFGPU_PDFPlan_FinalPlan_Resolution_11082022.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2023.
———. 2022b. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. Available at: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/SSFCAP_PublicDraft2022_02_Small.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2023.
———. 2023a. Orange Memorial Park Master Plan. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/29241/638137808336400000. Accessed June 7, 2023.
———. 2023b. SSF Zoning Search App. Available at: https://zoning.ssf.net/. Accessed June 5, 2023.
———. 2023c. SSF New Aquatic Center at Orange Memorial Park. FAQS. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/parks-recreation/recreation-division/aquatics/new-aquatic-center-at-orange-memorial-park. Accessed June 7, 2023.
City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation. 2023a. Child Care. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/parks-recreation/recreation-division/child-care. Accessed August 17, 2023.
City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation. 2023b. Summer Camp 2023. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/29129/638125653359470000. Accessed August 17, 2023.
———. 2023d. Community Choice Energy. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/city-
manager/sustainability/community-choice-energy. Accessed July 20, 2023.
———. 2023e. Municipal Code. Chapter 13.30 Tree Preservation. Available at: https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_13-
chapter_13_30. Accessed June 5, 2023.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81
———. 2023f. Municipal Code. Title 20. Zoning. Available at: https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_20-division_i-
chapter_20_020-20_020_001. Accessed June 5, 2023.
———. 2023g. Municipal Code. Chapter 8.32. Noise Regulations. Available at: https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8-
chapter_8_32. Accessed July 20, 2023.
———. 2023h. Fire Stations. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/fire/fire-stations. Accessed June 13, 2023.
———. 2023i. Police Stations. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/police. Accessed June 13, 2023.
———. 2023j. Free South City Shuttle. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/services/free-south-city-shuttle/shuttle-map. Accessed August 17, 2023.
———. 2023k. Water Quality Control Plant. Treatment Process. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/treatment-process. Accessed June 14, 2023.
———. 2023l. Water Quality Control Plant. Public Notification. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/public-notification. Accessed June 14, 2023.
City of South San Francisco, Engineering Department. 2019. City of South San Francisco Orange
Memorial Park Water Capture Project. Public Review Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by Wood Environmental & Infrastructure Solutions.
City of South San Francisco, Parks Division. 2023a. Sign Hill webpage. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/parks-recreation/parks-division/sign-hill. Accessed June 8, 2023.
———. 2023b. Tree Preservation Ordinance webpage. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/parks-recreation/parks-division/trees. Accessed June 9, 2023.
County of San Mateo. 2023. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Construction Best Practices Webpage. Available at: https://www.flowstobay.org/construction. Accessed June 12, 2023.
Department of Conservation. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. San Mateo County. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June 5, 2023.
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. Bulletin 118 – Westside Groundwater Basin. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/2_035_Westside.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2023.
Everything South City. 2021. Must Read Tips from our South City San Francisco Scavenger Company. Available at: https://everythingsouthcity.com/2021/06/must-read-tips-from-our-south-san-francisco-scavenger-company/. Accessed June 29, 2023.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. National Flood Hazard Layer. Map 06081C0043F. Available at: https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd>. Accessed June 12, 2023.
FlowstoBay.org. 2023. Stormwater Quality Control Requirements, Information for Developers, Builders
and Project Applicants. Available at: https://www.flowstobay.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SMCWPPP-MRP-3.0-C.3-Flyer_final.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2023.
Rizzoli, Linda. Senior Project Manager. Swinerton Management & Consulting. July 7, 2023. Email communication to Julie Barlow, Principal Planning Team Lead, SWCA Environmental Consultants.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). 2022.
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. Order No. R2-2022-0018. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2022/R2-2022-0018.pdf> Accessed June 12, 2023.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2023. Alternative Water Supplies. Available at: https://sfpuc.org/programs/future-water-supply-planning/alternative-water-supplies. Accessed June 29, 2023.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2023. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. March 7. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html.
Accessed June 12, 2023.
San Mateo County. 2023. Open San Mateo County. Williamson Act Parcels. Available at: https://data.smcgov.org/Housing-Development/Williamson-Act-Parcels/sq6e-7j5j. Accessed June 5, 2023.
South San Francisco Scavenger Company. 2018. Facilitating Food Waste Digestion. Available at: https://www.biocycle.net/facilitating-food-waste-digestion/. Published in BioCycle, May 2018. Accessed June 29, 2023.
———. 2023a. About Us. Available at: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/. Accessed June 29, 2023.
———. 2023b. History. Available at: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/history/. Accessed June 29, 2023.
South San Francisco Unified School District. 2022. Long Range Facilities Master Plan. Available at: https://4.files.edl.io/5a24/08/25/22/194515-5cce5154-3bcb-4222-9cc6-9fff606d1143.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2023.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. Bay-Delta Plan Update: Amendments and Substitute Environmental Document (SED) for the Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/w
ater_quality_control_planning/2018_sed/. Accessed June 29, 2023.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83
———. 2020. Environmental Screening Levels Webpage. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.html. Accessed
June 7, 2023.
———. 2023a. GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed June 7, 2023.
———. 2023b. GeoTracker. Parcels northwest of Orange Park (T10000002366). Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000002366. Accessed June 7, 2023.
Stinson, M.C, M.W. Manson, and J.L. Plappert. 1982. Aggregate Resource Sectors. South San Francisco Bay P-C Region. Map 2-65. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc> Accessed June 13, 2023.
Troung, Kim-Van, Principal, els Architecture+urban design. 2023. Email communication with Linda Rizzoli Swinerton Management & Consulting. August 25, 2023.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Final Report. August 2006.
———. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2023.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. M6.9 October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/m69-october-17-1989-loma-prieta-earthquake. Accessed June 5, 2023.
———. 2023. The Great San Francisco Earthquake. Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1906calif/18april/. Accessed June 5, 2023.
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report
CalEEMod Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Projections
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
1 / 91
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
2 / 91
3.3. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.4. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.6. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
3.7. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.8. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.12. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
3.16. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
3 / 91
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.3.1. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.4.1. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.5.1. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
4 / 91
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
5 / 91
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
6 / 91
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
7 / 91
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
8 / 91
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
9 / 91
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)4.60
Precipitation (days)37.8
Location 1 W Orange Ave, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA
County San Mateo
City South San Francisco
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1211
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.14
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
10 / 91
Recreational
Swimming Pool
5.43 1000sqft 0.12 23,070 0.00 0.00 ——
City Park 0.92 Acre 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.92 ——
Parking Lot 13.0 Space 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Recreational
Swimming Pool
6.23 1000sqft 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
21.0 1000sqft 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
Sector #Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.2.13 12.5 16.6 17.7 0.04 0.75 8.74 9.49 0.69 3.64 4.33 —4,376 4,376 0.35 0.28 4.08 4,474
Mit.2.13 12.5 16.6 17.7 0.04 0.75 4.37 4.96 0.69 1.45 2.14 —4,376 4,376 0.35 0.28 4.08 4,474
%
Reduced
——————50%48%—60%51%———————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
11 / 91
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit.2.14 1.74 16.8 17.7 0.04 0.75 8.74 9.49 0.69 3.64 4.33 —4,362 4,362 0.35 0.29 0.11 4,458
Mit.2.14 1.74 16.8 17.7 0.04 0.75 4.37 4.96 0.69 1.45 2.14 —4,362 4,362 0.35 0.29 0.11 4,458
%
Reduced
——————50%48%—60%51%———————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.22 1.10 8.69 9.33 0.02 0.35 2.47 2.82 0.32 0.76 1.07 —1,912 1,912 0.11 0.07 0.57 1,936
Mit.1.22 1.10 8.69 9.33 0.02 0.35 1.00 1.34 0.32 0.32 0.64 —1,912 1,912 0.11 0.07 0.57 1,936
%
Reduced
——————60%52%—58%40%———————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.22 0.20 1.59 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.45 0.51 0.06 0.14 0.20 —317 317 0.02 0.01 0.09 321
Mit.0.22 0.20 1.59 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.12 —317 317 0.02 0.01 0.09 321
%
Reduced
——————60%52%—58%40%———————
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 2.12 1.74 16.6 16.8 0.03 0.75 8.74 9.49 0.69 3.64 4.33 —3,092 3,092 0.16 0.09 1.85 3,125
2025 2.13 12.5 16.5 17.7 0.04 0.59 7.27 7.86 0.54 1.10 1.64 —4,376 4,376 0.35 0.28 4.08 4,474
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
12 / 91
2024 2.14 1.74 16.8 17.7 0.03 0.75 8.74 9.49 0.69 3.64 4.33 —3,440 3,440 0.21 0.14 0.06 3,488
2025 2.13 1.58 16.6 17.7 0.04 0.59 7.27 7.86 0.54 1.10 1.64 —4,362 4,362 0.35 0.29 0.11 4,458
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 1.22 0.98 8.69 9.33 0.02 0.35 2.47 2.82 0.32 0.76 1.07 —1,912 1,912 0.11 0.07 0.57 1,936
2025 0.55 1.10 4.15 4.73 0.01 0.15 1.56 1.70 0.14 0.23 0.37 —1,079 1,079 0.08 0.06 0.40 1,099
Annual ——————————————————
2024 0.22 0.18 1.59 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.45 0.51 0.06 0.14 0.20 —317 317 0.02 0.01 0.09 321
2025 0.10 0.20 0.76 0.86 < 0.005 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.03 0.04 0.07 —179 179 0.01 0.01 0.07 182
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 2.12 1.74 16.6 16.8 0.03 0.75 3.43 4.18 0.69 1.45 2.14 —3,092 3,092 0.16 0.09 1.85 3,125
2025 2.13 12.5 16.5 17.7 0.04 0.59 4.37 4.96 0.54 0.71 1.25 —4,376 4,376 0.35 0.28 4.08 4,474
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 2.14 1.74 16.8 17.7 0.03 0.75 3.43 4.18 0.69 1.45 2.14 —3,440 3,440 0.21 0.14 0.06 3,488
2025 2.13 1.58 16.6 17.7 0.04 0.59 4.37 4.96 0.54 0.71 1.25 —4,362 4,362 0.35 0.29 0.11 4,458
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 1.22 0.98 8.69 9.33 0.02 0.35 1.00 1.34 0.32 0.32 0.64 —1,912 1,912 0.11 0.07 0.57 1,936
2025 0.55 1.10 4.15 4.73 0.01 0.15 0.87 1.02 0.14 0.14 0.28 —1,079 1,079 0.08 0.06 0.40 1,099
Annual ——————————————————
2024 0.22 0.18 1.59 1.70 < 0.005 0.06 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.12 —317 317 0.02 0.01 0.09 321
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
13 / 91
2025 0.10 0.20 0.76 0.86 < 0.005 0.03 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.05 —179 179 0.01 0.01 0.07 182
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.17 1.65 0.61 8.22 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.80 0.01 0.45 0.46 37.2 1,959 1,996 3.80 0.07 6.67 2,119
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.98 1.47 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 37.2 1,869 1,906 3.81 0.08 0.28 2,025
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.88 1.38 0.56 6.20 0.02 0.01 1.47 1.48 0.01 0.37 0.38 37.2 1,549 1,586 3.79 0.06 2.45 1,702
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.16 0.25 0.10 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 6.16 256 263 0.63 0.01 0.40 282
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.99 0.92 0.60 7.22 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,946 1,946 0.08 0.07 6.56 1,975
Area 0.18 0.73 0.01 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.14
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
14 / 91
Water ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Waste ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Refrig.————————————————0.11 0.11
Total 1.17 1.65 0.61 8.22 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.80 0.01 0.45 0.46 37.2 1,959 1,996 3.80 0.07 6.67 2,119
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.98 0.90 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,860 1,860 0.09 0.08 0.17 1,885
Area —0.56 ————————————————
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Water ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Waste ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Refrig.————————————————0.11 0.11
Total 0.98 1.47 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 37.2 1,869 1,906 3.81 0.08 0.28 2,025
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 0.79 0.73 0.55 5.70 0.02 0.01 1.47 1.48 0.01 0.37 0.38 —1,539 1,539 0.07 0.06 2.34 1,560
Area 0.09 0.64 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.03 2.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.04
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Water ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Waste ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Refrig.————————————————0.11 0.11
Total 0.88 1.38 0.56 6.20 0.02 0.01 1.47 1.48 0.01 0.37 0.38 37.2 1,549 1,586 3.79 0.06 2.45 1,702
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.15 0.13 0.10 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 —255 255 0.01 0.01 0.39 258
Area 0.02 0.12 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.98
Water ———————————0.22 0.41 0.63 0.02 < 0.005 —1.36
Waste ———————————5.94 0.00 5.94 0.59 0.00 —20.8
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
15 / 91
Refrig.————————————————0.02 0.02
Total 0.16 0.25 0.10 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 6.16 256 263 0.63 0.01 0.40 282
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.99 0.92 0.60 7.22 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,946 1,946 0.08 0.07 6.56 1,975
Area 0.18 0.73 0.01 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.14
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Water ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Waste ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Refrig.————————————————0.11 0.11
Total 1.17 1.65 0.61 8.22 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.80 0.01 0.45 0.46 37.2 1,959 1,996 3.80 0.07 6.67 2,119
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.98 0.90 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,860 1,860 0.09 0.08 0.17 1,885
Area —0.56 ————————————————
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Water ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Waste ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Refrig.————————————————0.11 0.11
Total 0.98 1.47 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 37.2 1,869 1,906 3.81 0.08 0.28 2,025
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 0.79 0.73 0.55 5.70 0.02 0.01 1.47 1.48 0.01 0.37 0.38 —1,539 1,539 0.07 0.06 2.34 1,560
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
16 / 91
Area 0.09 0.64 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.03 2.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.04
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Water ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Waste ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Refrig.————————————————0.11 0.11
Total 0.88 1.38 0.56 6.20 0.02 0.01 1.47 1.48 0.01 0.37 0.38 37.2 1,549 1,586 3.79 0.06 2.45 1,702
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.15 0.13 0.10 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 —255 255 0.01 0.01 0.39 258
Area 0.02 0.12 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.98
Water ———————————0.22 0.41 0.63 0.02 < 0.005 —1.36
Waste ———————————5.94 0.00 5.94 0.59 0.00 —20.8
Refrig.————————————————0.02 0.02
Total 0.16 0.25 0.10 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 6.16 256 263 0.63 0.01 0.40 282
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.92 1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 —0.67 0.62 —0.62 —2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 —2,502
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
17 / 91
Demolitio ——————0.98 0.98 —0.15 0.15 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.90
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.09 0.85 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.03 —0.03 —137 137 0.01 < 0.005 —137
Demolitio
n
——————0.05 0.05 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —22.7
Demolitio
n
——————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 61.3
Hauling 0.12 0.01 1.07 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 —643 643 0.10 0.10 0.03 677
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.21 3.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.36
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
18 / 91
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.2 35.2 0.01 0.01 0.03 37.1
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.17 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.83 5.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.14
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.92 1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 —0.67 0.62 —0.62 —2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 —2,502
Demolitio
n
——————0.63 0.63 —0.10 0.10 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.90
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.09 0.85 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.03 —0.03 —137 137 0.01 < 0.005 —137
Demolitio
n
——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32
Annual ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
19 / 91
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —22.7
Demolitio
n
——————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 61.3
Hauling 0.12 0.01 1.07 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 —643 643 0.10 0.10 0.03 677
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.21 3.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.36
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.2 35.2 0.01 0.01 0.03 37.1
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.17 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.83 5.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.14
3.3. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
20 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.75 1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 —0.57 0.52 —0.52 —2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 —2,502
Demolitio
n
——————5.32 5.32 —0.81 0.81 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.50 5.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.75 1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 —0.57 0.52 —0.52 —2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 —2,502
Demolitio
n
——————5.32 5.32 —0.81 0.81 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.79
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.31 0.26 2.44 2.65 < 0.005 0.10 —0.10 0.09 —0.09 —437 437 0.02 < 0.005 —439
Demolitio
n
——————0.93 0.93 —0.14 0.14 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —0.96 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.45 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —72.4 72.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —72.6
Demolitio
n
——————0.17 0.17 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17
Offsite ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
21 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —247 247 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 249
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.6 57.6 0.01 0.01 0.14 60.3
Hauling 0.28 0.04 2.42 1.64 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 —1,573 1,573 0.24 0.25 3.11 1,657
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —233 233 0.01 0.01 0.02 237
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.6 57.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 60.1
Hauling 0.28 0.04 2.54 1.64 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 —1,572 1,572 0.24 0.25 0.08 1,654
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —41.1 41.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 41.7
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.6
Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.44 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —276 276 0.04 0.04 0.24 290
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.80 6.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.90
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.67 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.75
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —45.7 45.7 0.01 0.01 0.04 48.0
3.4. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
22 / 91
2,502—0.020.102,4942,494—0.52—0.520.57—0.570.0215.113.91.471.75Off-Road
Equipment
Demolitio
n
——————3.40 3.40 —0.52 0.52 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.50 5.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.75 1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 —0.57 0.52 —0.52 —2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 —2,502
Demolitio
n
——————3.40 3.40 —0.52 0.52 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.79
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.31 0.26 2.44 2.65 < 0.005 0.10 —0.10 0.09 —0.09 —437 437 0.02 < 0.005 —439
Demolitio
n
——————0.60 0.60 —0.09 0.09 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —0.96 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.45 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —72.4 72.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —72.6
Demolitio
n
——————0.11 0.11 —0.02 0.02 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
23 / 91
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —247 247 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 249
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.6 57.6 0.01 0.01 0.14 60.3
Hauling 0.28 0.04 2.42 1.64 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 —1,573 1,573 0.24 0.25 3.11 1,657
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —233 233 0.01 0.01 0.02 237
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.6 57.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 60.1
Hauling 0.28 0.04 2.54 1.64 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 —1,572 1,572 0.24 0.25 0.08 1,654
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —41.1 41.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 41.7
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.6
Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.44 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —276 276 0.04 0.04 0.24 290
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.80 6.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.90
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.67 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.75
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —45.7 45.7 0.01 0.01 0.04 48.0
3.5. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
24 / 91
2,071—0.020.082,0642,064—0.59—0.590.65—0.650.0212.913.71.431.70Off-Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————6.26 6.26 —3.00 3.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.90
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.09 0.86 0.81 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —130 130 0.01 < 0.005 —130
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.39 0.39 —0.19 0.19 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.6
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.07 0.07 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
25 / 91
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 61.3
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.54 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.02 338
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.69 3.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.87
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.3 20.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.3
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.53
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.64
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.36 3.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.53
3.6. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.70 1.43 13.7 12.9 0.02 0.65 —0.65 0.59 —0.59 —2,064 2,064 0.08 0.02 —2,071
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.44 2.44 —1.17 1.17 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.90
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
26 / 91
——————————————————Average
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.09 0.86 0.81 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —130 130 0.01 < 0.005 —130
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.15 0.15 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.6
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 61.3
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.54 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.02 338
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.69 3.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.87
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
27 / 91
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.3 20.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.3
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.53
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.64
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.36 3.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.53
3.7. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 —0.74 0.68 —0.68 —2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 —2,462
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7.08 7.08 —3.42 3.42 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 —0.74 0.68 —0.68 —2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 —2,462
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————7.08 7.08 —3.42 3.42 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.90
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
28 / 91
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.23 0.19 1.87 1.82 < 0.005 0.09 —0.09 0.08 —0.08 —289 289 0.01 < 0.005 —290
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.83 0.83 —0.40 0.40 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —0.66 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.70
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 0.34 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.01 —0.01 —47.9 47.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —48.0
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.15 0.15 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.11 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —253 253 < 0.005 0.01 0.92 257
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 0.14 61.5
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.51 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.63 339
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 61.3
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.54 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.02 338
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
29 / 91
——————————————————Average
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.6
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.91 6.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.23
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —37.9 37.9 0.01 0.01 0.03 39.9
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.67 4.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.74
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.27 6.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.61
3.8. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 —0.74 0.68 —0.68 —2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 —2,462
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.76 2.76 —1.34 1.34 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 —0.74 0.68 —0.68 —2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 —2,462
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
30 / 91
———————1.341.34—2.762.76——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.90
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.23 0.19 1.87 1.82 < 0.005 0.09 —0.09 0.08 —0.08 —289 289 0.01 < 0.005 —290
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.33 0.33 —0.16 0.16 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.66 0.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.70
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 0.34 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.01 —0.01 —47.9 47.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —48.0
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.06 0.06 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.11 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —253 253 < 0.005 0.01 0.92 257
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 0.14 61.5
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.51 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.63 339
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
31 / 91
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —58.6 58.6 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 61.3
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.54 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.02 338
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.6
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.91 6.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.23
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —37.9 37.9 0.01 0.01 0.03 39.9
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.67 4.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.74
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.27 6.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.61
3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.36 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 —0.37 0.34 —0.34 —1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 —1,807
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.36 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 —0.37 0.34 —0.34 —1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 —1,807
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
32 / 91
5.90< 0.005< 0.005< 0.0055.595.59—0.130.13< 0.0051.321.32< 0.005< 0.0050.010.02< 0.005< 0.005Onsite
truck
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.65 0.54 4.53 4.84 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.16 —0.16 —864 864 0.04 0.01 —867
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 —2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.83
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.10 0.83 0.88 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —143 143 0.01 < 0.005 —143
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —253 253 < 0.005 0.01 0.92 257
Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.17 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —117 117 0.01 0.02 0.29 123
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.51 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.63 339
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.18 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —117 117 0.01 0.02 0.01 123
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.54 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.02 338
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 —115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 116
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —56.2 56.2 0.01 0.01 0.06 58.9
Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.25 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —154 154 0.02 0.03 0.13 162
Annual ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
33 / 91
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.31 9.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.75
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —25.5 25.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 26.9
3.10. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.36 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 —0.37 0.34 —0.34 —1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 —1,807
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.36 1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 —0.37 0.34 —0.34 —1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 —1,807
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.59 5.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.90
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.65 0.54 4.53 4.84 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.16 —0.16 —864 864 0.04 0.01 —867
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.83
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.10 0.83 0.88 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —143 143 0.01 < 0.005 —143
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
34 / 91
0.47< 0.005< 0.005< 0.0050.440.44—< 0.005< 0.005< 0.0050.030.03< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005Onsite
truck
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —253 253 < 0.005 0.01 0.92 257
Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.17 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —117 117 0.01 0.02 0.29 123
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.51 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.63 339
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —239 239 0.01 0.01 0.02 242
Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.18 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —117 117 0.01 0.02 0.01 123
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.54 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —322 322 0.05 0.05 0.02 338
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 —115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 116
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —56.2 56.2 0.01 0.01 0.06 58.9
Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.25 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —154 154 0.02 0.03 0.13 162
Annual ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19.0 19.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 19.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.31 9.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.75
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —25.5 25.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 26.9
3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
35 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 —0.33 0.30 —0.30 —1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 —1,807
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.79
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.07 0.61 0.69 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —123 123 0.01 < 0.005 —124
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.01 0.11 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.5
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —233 233 0.01 0.01 0.02 237
Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.17 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —115 115 0.01 0.02 0.01 120
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.51 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —314 314 0.05 0.05 0.02 331
Average
Daily
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
36 / 91
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.89 7.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.25
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22.7
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.69
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.37
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.57 3.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.75
3.12. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 —0.33 0.30 —0.30 —1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 —1,807
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.79
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.09 0.07 0.61 0.69 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —123 123 0.01 < 0.005 —124
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.01 0.11 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.5
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
37 / 91
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 —233 233 0.01 0.01 0.02 237
Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.17 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —115 115 0.01 0.02 0.01 120
Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.51 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —314 314 0.05 0.05 0.02 331
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.3
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.89 7.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.25
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22.7
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.69
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.37
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.57 3.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.75
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
38 / 91
995—0.010.04992992—0.19—0.190.20—0.200.016.504.630.490.59Off-Road
Equipment
Paving —0.01 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 —5.50 5.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.51 0.71 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 —109
Paving —< 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.64
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —18.0 18.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.1
Paving —< 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 —165 165 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 166
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.6 57.6 0.01 0.01 0.14 60.3
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
39 / 91
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.4
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.31 6.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.60
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.83 2.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.87
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.59 0.49 4.63 6.50 0.01 0.20 —0.20 0.19 —0.19 —992 992 0.04 0.01 —995
Paving —0.01 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —5.50 5.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.81
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.51 0.71 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 —109
Paving —< 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.64
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
40 / 91
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —18.0 18.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.1
Paving —< 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 —165 165 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 166
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.6 57.6 0.01 0.01 0.14 60.3
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.4
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.31 6.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.60
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.83 2.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.87
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
41 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134
Architect
ural
Coatings
—11.8 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.68 7.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.71
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.68 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.28
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.12 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —82.4 82.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 82.9
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
42 / 91
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.16. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134
Architect
ural
Coatings
—11.8 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
43 / 91
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.68 7.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.71
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.68 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.28
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.12 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —82.4 82.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 82.9
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.56
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
44 / 91
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.99 0.92 0.60 7.18 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,935 1,935 0.08 0.07 6.52 1,963
City Park 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 11.8
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.99 0.92 0.60 7.22 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,946 1,946 0.08 0.07 6.56 1,975
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
45 / 91
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.97 0.90 0.71 7.19 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,849 1,849 0.09 0.07 0.17 1,874
City Park 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.2
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.98 0.90 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,860 1,860 0.09 0.08 0.17 1,885
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.14 0.13 0.10 1.04 <0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 —254 254 0.01 0.01 0.39 257
City Park < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.15 0.13 0.10 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 —255 255 0.01 0.01 0.39 258
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
46 / 91
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.99 0.92 0.60 7.18 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,935 1,935 0.08 0.07 6.52 1,963
City Park 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 11.8
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.99 0.92 0.60 7.22 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,946 1,946 0.08 0.07 6.56 1,975
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.97 0.90 0.71 7.19 0.02 0.01 1.77 1.78 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,849 1,849 0.09 0.07 0.17 1,874
City Park 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.2
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.98 0.90 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.01 1.78 1.79 0.01 0.45 0.46 —1,860 1,860 0.09 0.08 0.17 1,885
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.14 0.13 0.10 1.04 <0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 —254 254 0.01 0.01 0.39 257
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
47 / 91
City Park < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.15 0.13 0.10 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 —255 255 0.01 0.01 0.39 258
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————3.35 3.35 <0.005 < 0.005 —3.39
City Park ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.52
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
48 / 91
3.39—< 0.005< 0.0053.353.35————————————Recreati
onal
City Park ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.52
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————0.56 0.56 <0.005 < 0.005 —0.56
City Park ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.42
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.98
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
49 / 91
3.39—< 0.005< 0.0053.353.35————————————Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
City Park ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.52
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————3.35 3.35 <0.005 < 0.005 —3.39
City Park ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.52
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————5.85 5.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.91
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————0.56 0.56 <0.005 < 0.005 —0.56
City Park ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
50 / 91
0.42—< 0.005< 0.0050.410.41————————————Parking
Lot
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.98
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
51 / 91
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
52 / 91
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
53 / 91
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.50 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.07 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.18 0.16 0.01 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.14
Total 0.18 0.73 0.01 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.14
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.50 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.07 ————————————————
Total —0.56 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.09 ————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
54 / 91
————————————————0.01—Architect
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
Total 0.02 0.12 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.50 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.07 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.18 0.16 0.01 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.14
Total 0.18 0.73 0.01 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.13 4.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.14
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.50 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.07 ————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
55 / 91
Total —0.56 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.09 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.01 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
Total 0.02 0.12 < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 <0.005 —8.19
City Park ———————————0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
56 / 91
Total ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 <0.005 —8.19
City Park ———————————0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————0.22 0.41 0.63 0.02 <0.005 —1.36
City Park ———————————0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————0.22 0.41 0.63 0.02 < 0.005 —1.36
4.4.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
57 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 <0.005 —8.19
City Park ———————————0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 <0.005 —8.19
City Park ———————————0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————1.32 2.50 3.82 0.14 < 0.005 —8.19
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————0.22 0.41 0.63 0.02 <0.005 —1.36
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
58 / 91
City Park ———————————0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————0.22 0.41 0.63 0.02 < 0.005 —1.36
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————35.8 0.00 35.8 3.58 0.00 —125
City Park ———————————0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 —0.15
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
59 / 91
125—0.003.5835.80.0035.8———————————Recreati
onal
City Park ———————————0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 —0.15
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————5.93 0.00 5.93 0.59 0.00 —20.7
City Park ———————————0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 —0.02
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————5.94 0.00 5.94 0.59 0.00 —20.8
4.5.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
60 / 91
125—0.003.5835.80.0035.8———————————Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
City Park ———————————0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 —0.15
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————35.8 0.00 35.8 3.58 0.00 —125
City Park ———————————0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 —0.15
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————35.9 0.00 35.9 3.58 0.00 —125
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
———————————5.93 0.00 5.93 0.59 0.00 —20.7
City Park ———————————0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 —0.02
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
61 / 91
0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Parking
Lot
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————5.94 0.00 5.94 0.59 0.00 —20.8
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————————0.11 0.11
City Park ————————————————0.00 0.00
Total ————————————————0.11 0.11
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————————0.11 0.11
City Park ————————————————0.00 0.00
Total ————————————————0.11 0.11
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
62 / 91
Annual ——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————————0.02 0.02
City Park ————————————————0.00 0.00
Total ————————————————0.02 0.02
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————————0.11 0.11
City Park ————————————————0.00 0.00
Total ————————————————0.11 0.11
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Recreati
onal
Swimmin
g
Pool
————————————————0.11 0.11
City Park ————————————————0.00 0.00
Total ————————————————0.11 0.11
Annual ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
63 / 91
Recreati
Swimming
Pool
————————————————0.02 0.02
City Park ————————————————0.00 0.00
Total ————————————————0.02 0.02
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
64 / 91
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
65 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
66 / 91
Equipme
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
67 / 91
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
68 / 91
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
69 / 91
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
70 / 91
Sequest ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
71 / 91
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Demolition of parking lot Demolition 1/1/2024 1/29/2024 5.00 20.0 Demolition of the existing
parking lot
Demolition of Center Demolition 2/5/2025 5/5/2025 5.00 64.0 Demolition of the existing
aquatic center
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2024 2/29/2024 5.00 23.0 Site prep in the vicinity of
the eastern-most parking
lot and sports field area
Grading Grading 3/1/2024 4/30/2024 5.00 43.0 Grading of entire project
area
Building Construction Building Construction 5/1/2024 2/4/2025 5.00 200 Construction new aquatic
center
Paving & Landscaping Paving 5/6/2025 6/30/2025 5.00 40.0 Landscaping and final site
work preparation
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/1/2025 6/30/2025 5.00 21.0 Any coating necessary
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition of parking lot Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition of parking lot Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition of parking lot Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition of Center Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
72 / 91
Demolition of Center Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition of Center Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving & Landscaping Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving & Landscaping Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving & Landscaping Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Paving & Landscaping Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving & Landscaping Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition of parking lot Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
73 / 91
Demolition of parking lot Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition of parking lot Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition of Center Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition of Center Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition of Center Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving & Landscaping Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving & Landscaping Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving & Landscaping Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Paving & Landscaping Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving & Landscaping Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
74 / 91
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition of parking lot ————
Demolition of parking lot Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition of parking lot Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition of parking lot Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition of parking lot Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Paving & Landscaping ————
Paving & Landscaping Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving & Landscaping Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
75 / 91
Paving & Landscaping Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving & Landscaping Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Demolition of Center ————
Demolition of Center Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition of Center Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition of Center Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition of Center Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition of parking lot ————
Demolition of parking lot Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition of parking lot Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition of parking lot Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition of parking lot Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
76 / 91
Grading Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Paving & Landscaping ————
Paving & Landscaping Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving & Landscaping Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving & Landscaping Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving & Landscaping Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Demolition of Center ————
Demolition of Center Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition of Center Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition of Center Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition of Center Onsite truck 1.00 1.00 HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
77 / 91
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 34,605 11,535 1,566
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Ton of
Debris)
Material Exported (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition of parking lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 850 —
Demolition of Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 14,700 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 21.6 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 43.0 0.00 —
Paving & Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0%
City Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.12 100%
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.48 0%
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
78 / 91
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Recreational
Swimming Pool
156 49.4 73.8 47,227 1,174 371 554 354,198
City Park 0.72 1.80 2.01 386 5.38 13.5 15.1 2,896
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recreational
Swimming Pool
180 56.7 84.7 54,185 1,347 425 635 406,382
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Recreational
Swimming Pool
156 49.4 73.8 47,227 1,174 371 554 354,198
City Park 0.72 1.80 2.01 386 5.38 13.5 15.1 2,896
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recreational
Swimming Pool
180 56.7 84.7 54,185 1,347 425 635 406,382
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
79 / 91
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 34,605 11,535 1,566
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
80 / 91
Recreational Swimming Pool 6,000 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 4,465 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Recreational Swimming Pool 6,000 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 4,465 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Recreational Swimming Pool 321,147 0.00
City Park 0.00 16.9
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 368,462 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
81 / 91
Recreational Swimming Pool 321,147 0.00
City Park 0.00 16.9
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Recreational Swimming Pool 368,462 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Recreational Swimming Pool 31.0 —
City Park 0.08 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Recreational Swimming Pool 35.5 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Recreational Swimming Pool 31.0 —
City Park 0.08 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Recreational Swimming Pool 35.5 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
82 / 91
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Recreational Swimming
Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
83 / 91
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
——
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
84 / 91
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG
emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.92 annual days of extreme heat
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
85 / 91
Extreme Precipitation 9.00 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 17.7 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different
increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation,population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 3 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
86 / 91
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 3 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 10.6
AQ-PM 27.3
AQ-DPM 71.2
Drinking Water 40.2
Lead Risk Housing 43.6
Pesticides 10.9
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
87 / 91
Toxic Releases 34.4
Traffic 41.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 17.1
Groundwater 91.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 81.2
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 35.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 61.1
Cardio-vascular 37.9
Low Birth Weights 58.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 39.5
Housing 30.2
Linguistic 55.9
Poverty 21.0
Unemployment 0.33
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 67.0986783
Employed 98.65263698
Median HI 63.44155011
Education —
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
88 / 91
Bachelor's or higher 64.96856153
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 73.68150905
Transportation —
Auto Access 20.21044527
Active commuting 88.42551007
Social —
2-parent households 57.25651225
Voting 62.31233158
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 14.57718465
Park access 43.98819453
Retail density 84.81971
Supermarket access 85.58963172
Tree canopy 64.12164763
Housing —
Homeownership 28.53843193
Housing habitability 46.19530348
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 52.76530219
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 91.4282048
Uncrowded housing 47.8121391
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 65.67432311
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 30.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin)0.0
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
89 / 91
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 58.8
Cognitively Disabled 70.6
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 54.7
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 89.4
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 23.1
Elderly 28.2
English Speaking 26.1
Foreign-born 71.7
Outdoor Workers 47.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
90 / 91
Impervious Surface Cover 18.1
Traffic Density 17.0
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 42.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 64.1
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)38.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)80.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)Yes
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
SSF Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Detailed Report, 7/18/2023
91 / 91
Land Use 5,430 square foot, 6-lane indoor pool in a 23,070 sq ft building No building associated with the 6,230
sq ft pool
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule adjusted for project specifics
Construction: Trips and VMT Adjusted for project
Operations: Energy Use Added electricity for building
APPENDIX B
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Cultural Resources Technical Report
for the Orange Memorial Park
Aquatic Center Replacement Project,
South San Francisco, San Mateo
County, California
FINAL
SEPTEMBER 2023
PREPARED FOR
City of South San Francisco
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE
ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK AQUATIC CENTER
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of South San Francisco 400 Grand AvenueSouth San Francisco, CA 94083 Attn: Phillip Vitale, Jr. Deputy Director of Capital Projects
Prepared by
Christina Alonso, M.A., RPA, Kerry Boutte, M.A., RPA, and Brandon Foster, M.A., Sayre Borden, M.A., Daniel Herrick, M.H.C.
Principal Investigators
Daniel Herrick, M.H.C., Garret Root, M.A., Christina Alonso, M.A., RPA
SWCA Environmental Consultants 60 Stone Pine Road, Suite 100
Half Moon Bay, California 94019 (650) 440-4160www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 78620
SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 23-417
September 2023
Archaeological and other heritage resources can be damaged or destroyed through uncontrolled public disclosure of information regarding their location. This document contains sensitive information regarding the nature and location of archaeological sites, which should not be disclosed to the general public or unauthorized persons. This information is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Code of Regulations Section 15120(d)).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope: SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) was retained by Swinerton Management and Consulting to provide cultural resources support for the New Aquatic Center Project (project) at Orange Memorial Park, located at 1 W. Orange Avenue in the city of South San Francisco
in San Mateo County, California. SWCA understands that the project will include the construction of a new aquatic center and associated site improvements, followed by demolition of the extant Orange Pool building, which was constructed in 1970 as an indoor municipal swimming pool located at the northwest corner of the park. The intent of this cultural resources inventory report is to identify potential cultural resources within and adjacent to the project area and, in turn, assist in the project’s requirements to achieve California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance.
Dates of the Investigation: SWCA sent a records search request with a 0.25-mile buffer around the project area to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Northwest Information Center (NWIC) on April 26, 2023. The records search results (NWIC File No. 22-1663) were received on May 24, 2023, and indicated that there was one previously recorded cultural resources in the project area, a section of the Southern Pacific Junction known as CA-SMH-357 (P-41-000497). SWCA
performed an intensive historical resources survey of the project area on April 11, 2023, documenting the built environment, including the Orange Pool building. Subsequent research related to relevant historic contexts and the evolution of the project area was conducted over the course of the following months. An archaeological survey of the project area was conducted on May 31, 2023. The previously recorded resource has been removed and is no longer present in the project area.
SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 26, 2023,
requesting a search of its Sacred Lands File for traditional cultural resources. SWCA sent letters to NAHC-identified Native American contacts on May 30, 2023. Follow-up telephone calls were made on June 2 and June 8, 2023. Native American outreach performed as part of this review does not
constitute formal consultation. Chairperson Irene Zwierlein of the Amah Mutsun Band of Mission San Juan Bautista requested that all persons be aware that railroads were historically built on Native burial grounds. Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan requested the CHRIS results,final report, andthe evolution and development of the project area. That information was summarized in an email to Chairperson Sayers. Kanyon Sayers Roods responded via email that the project area overlaps or is near the management boundary of a potentially eligible cultural site and that she would like to consult on the project. The remainder of the telephone calls went unanswered.
Investigation Constraints: Documentation of the Orange Pool interior was not undertaken due to the presence of minors and other members of the general public; not taking photographs of the interior was intentional to maintain privacy of the swimming pool patrons. Visiting the University of California, Berkeley Environmental Design Archives to view the architectural files on the Orange Pool building was
not feasible at the time of authorship. There were no investigation constraints for the archaeology review.
Number and Types of Identified Cultural Resources: There is one previously identified resource within the project area—a segment of a former railroad alignment—although the archaeological survey
confirmed that the resource is no longer extant. No resources were reported during intensive archaeological survey, and the historical resources survey found that the 1970 Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or designation as a South San Francisco Historical Resource. Therefore, no cultural resources were identified within the project area or vicinity.
Report Format: The format of this report follows Archaeological Resource Management Reports
(ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 1990).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
ii
Conclusions: There was one previously recorded cultural resource, which is no longer extant, and no newly identified cultural resources within the project area. With implementation of conditions to comply
with regulatory compliance measures related to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources and human remains, SWCA finds that the proposed project will have a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources under CEQA.
Recommendations: No cultural resources were noted on the ground surface during the intensive archaeological pedestrian survey. However, the possibility of encountering cultural resources during excavation remains. If cultural materials are uncovered during project work, the Inadvertent Discovery procedures provided at the end of this report should be followed.
Disposition of Data: This report will be filed with the NWIC and Half Moon Bay, California, office of SWCA. Field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on file at SWCA’s Half Moon Bay office.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
iii
CONTENTS
Management Summary ............................................................................................................................... i
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................................. 5
State Regulations .................................................................................................................................... 5 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................................. 5 California Register of Historical Resources..................................................................................... 7 Treatment of Human Remains ......................................................................................................... 8
Local Regulations ................................................................................................................................... 8
City of South San Francisco Historic Preservation Ordinance ........................................................ 8 South San Francisco Historic Resources Program ........................................................................... 9
Project Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................................... 10
Cultural Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Pre-Contact Overview .................................................................................................................... 10 Ethnography ................................................................................................................................... 13 Historic Overview .......................................................................................................................... 14
Identification of Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 20
Records Search ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Prior Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area ........................................................................ 21
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project ...................................... 24
Sacred Lands File Search and Initial Native American Coordination .................................................. 24
Archaeological Resource Survey ......................................................................................................... 25
Archaeological Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 25
Historical Resources Survey................................................................................................................. 33 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 33
Resources within the Project Area and Vicinity ................................................................................... 38 Previously Identified Resources .................................................................................................... 38 Resources Requiring Evaluation .................................................................................................... 38
Impacts Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 51
Archaeological ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Historical Resources ............................................................................................................................. 51
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 52 Inadvertent Discoveries ................................................................................................................. 52 Discovery of Human Remains ....................................................................................................... 53
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Appendices
Appendix A Chris Records Search Results
Appendix B Native American Coordination
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
iv
Appendix C Dpr 523 Forms for The Southern Pacific Junction Alignment
Appendix D Dpr 523 Forms for Orange Pool
Figures
Figure 1. Project location map. ..................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Project area map. ........................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Conceptual site plan of Orange Avenue Park showing proposed developments associated with the 1930 special election to issue bonds for parks and recreation development in
South San Francisco (source: The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930e). .......... 19
Figure 4. 1941 aerial photograph of Orange Memorial Park (source: UCSB Aerial Photograph Library 1941)............................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5. 1965 aerial photograph of Orange Memorial Park (source: UCSB Aerial Photograph Library 1965)............................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6. Overview from northeast corner of project area, facing west. ..................................................... 26
Figure 7. Overview from northeast corner of project area, facing northwest. ............................................ 26
Figure 8. Orange Park Pool Building entrance, facing northwest. .............................................................. 27
Figure 9. Overview of lawn area facing Orange Avenue, facing east. ....................................................... 27
Figure 10. Overview of lawn area facing Orange Avenue, facing north. ................................................... 28
Figure 11. Overview from southern border at southeast corner, facing north. ........................................... 28
Figure 12. Overview of Railroad Avenue, one block east of Orange Avenue, facing west. ...................... 29
Figure 13. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange Avenue, facing north. .................... 29
Figure 14. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange Avenue, facing south. .................... 30
Figure 15. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange Avenue, facing west. ..................... 30
Figure 16. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange Avenue, facing east. ...................... 31
Figure 17. Row of palm trees along Tennis Avenue planted in 1946, facing east. ..................................... 31
Figure 18. World War I and World War II memorial plaque, plan view. ................................................... 32
Figure 19. Korean War and Vietnam War memorial plaque, plan view. .................................................... 32
Figure 20. Primary (east) and south façades of Orange Pool, facing northwest from Orange Memorial Park. ............................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 21. Primary (east) façade of Orange Pool, facing west. .................................................................. 34
Figure 22. Primary entrance of Orange Pool, facing southwest. ................................................................ 35
Figure 23. South façade of Orange Pool, facing north. ............................................................................... 35
Figure 24. Detail of the southwest corner of Orange Pool. ......................................................................... 36
Figure 25. Glazing system at the south façade of Orange Pool, facing northwest. ..................................... 36
Figure 26. North and rear (west) façades, facing southeast. ....................................................................... 36
Figure 27. Eastern corner of the north façade, facing west. ........................................................................ 37
Figure 28. Fenestration detail at the north façade of the two-story volume, facing south. ......................... 37
Figure 29. Rear (west) façade of Orange Pool, facing east. ........................................................................ 37
Figure 30. Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Center (left) with playground (center) and Orange Pool
(right), facing northwest. ............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 31. Sketch of the proposed municipal swimming pool at the Civic Center location, prepared by architects Edwards & Schary, 1930 (source: The Enterprise and South San Francisco
Journal 1930d). ........................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 32. San Francisco County Fair Building (source: California Horticultural Society). ...................... 41
Figure 33. San Francisco Hall of Flowers library addition rendering by Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow, ca.1968 (source: San Francisco Botanical Garden)..................................................... 42
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
v
Figure 34. Rendering of the interior of Orange Pool, 1969 (source: The Times 1969a). ............................ 42
Figure 35. Photograph from the Orange Pool groundbreaking ceremony, December 6, 1969 (source:
The Times 1969c). ....................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 36. El Camino High School Gymnasium (source: Wikipedia Commons). ..................................... 45
Figure 37. South San Francisco Public Library at 840 W. Orange Avenue (source: City of South San Francisco). ............................................................................................................................ 45
Tables
Table 1. East Bay Interior/Central Bay Shore Region Periods, Patterns, and Aspects ............................... 11
Table 2. Previous Studies within the Project Area ...................................................................................... 22
Table 3. Previous Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area ................................................................. 22
Table 4. Resources within of the APE ........................................................................................................ 24
Table 5. Resources within 0.5-Mile Radius of the APE ............................................................................. 24
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
vi
This page intentionally left blank.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) was retained by the City of South San Francisco (the City) to provide archaeological support for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project (project) located at 1 W. Orange Avenue in South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California (Figure 1
and Figure 2). SWCA understands that the 6.5-acre project site (APN 014-041-160) is positioned within the larger 26.9-acre Orange Memorial Park, which is the largest developed park within the City and currently managed by the City’s Recreation and Park Department.
The purpose of the current study was to identify, evaluate, and record any cultural resources that may be present within the project area. SWCA archaeologist Reid Donovan, B.A., conducted the archaeological fieldwork for this project. To address historical resources, SWCA architectural historian Sayre Borden, M.A., visited the project area to document the existing conditions of the built environment, focusing primarily on the Orange Pool building at 1 W. Orange Avenue at the northeast corner of Orange Memorial Park in the city of South San Francisco. Sections related to historical resources were authored by SWCA architectural historian and historic preservation planner Daniel Herrick, M.H.C. These efforts were carried out under the direction of and reviewed for quality assurance/quality control by SWCA Senior Project Manager Christina Alonso, M.A., RPA, Principal Cultural Resources Team Lead for Architectural History Garret Root, M.A., and Cultural Resources Principal Investigator Joshua Peabody, M.A., RPA, all of whom meet and exceed the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior (SOI)
Professional Qualification Standards In their respective categories of Archaeology, History, and Architectural History (National Park Service 1983). All work was completed to achieve California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance as it relates to cultural resources.
Methodology
To identify cultural resources and assess potential impacts under CEQA, SWCA architectural historians
and archaeologists that meet the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards prepared this report, which provides narrative description of the project area’s existing conditions, outlines relevant historic contexts, provides a summary of previous studies and pedestrian survey efforts, and includes an evaluation
of historical significance for individual listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and designation as a South San Francisco Historical Resource. The documentation and evaluation is presented within this report, as well as accompanying California Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) 523 series forms.
To inform this report, SWCA requested a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), located at Sonoma State
University, Rohnert Park, on April 26, 2023. The search included previous cultural resource studies and archaeological resources and historical resources within the project site and surrounding 0.25-mile area. Results were received on May 24, 2023, and suggested the presence of one previously recorded resources within the project area and 0.25-mile search radius.
SWCA also contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on April 26, 2023. On May 18, 2023, the NAHC responded, stating that the SLF search had produced negative results. On May 30, 2023, SWCA submitted letters to the eight tribal representatives identified on the NAHC list. These letters provided a general project
description, associated project location maps, and a request for additional information regarding potential cultural resources located within the project area. Additional follow-up efforts by SWCA have been undertaken since the submission of the original information requests.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
2
Figure 1. Project location map.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
3
Figure 2. Project area map.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
4
On April 11, 2023, SWCA architectural historians visited the project area to perform a historical resources survey and document existing conditions of the built environment using digital photography.
The survey focused primarily on the exterior and architectural features 1970 Orange Pool building, although photographs of the surrounding context were taken as well. On May 31, 2023, SWCA conducted a pedestrian survey of the 6.5-acre project area. During the survey, the property was documented extensively using digital photographs. The SWCA archaeologist walked the project area, performing boot scrapes in areas of exposed soils, and the SWCA architectural historian focused specifically on documenting the existing conditions of the built environment, namely the recreational facilities and overall park landscape of the project area.
In preparing the original contexts and property histories, SWCA reviewed property-specific historical information and ethnographic literature to identify relevant background for the project area and its historical inhabitants. Research focused on a variety of primary and secondary materials, including historical maps, aerial photographs, ethnographic reports, and technical reports prepared for the project. Sources and repositories consulted include the U.S. Bureau of Land Management General Land Office and the U.S. Geological Survey for historical topographic maps and geological surveys of the area, and a variety of online source materials, including the Online Archive of California, Newspapers.com, and
Ancestry.com, among others.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing Orange Pool facility, associated parking lot, and a portion of the existing recreational grass soccer field area in the northeast portion of Orange Memorial Park along Orange Avenue to construct a new 23,070-square-foot aquatic center southeast
of the existing Orange Pool. The proposed project also includes a new parking lot with drop-off area and associated walkways with new landscaping.
The single-story facility would be approximately 30 feet in height and would contain an approximately 5,430-square-foot, six-lane indoor pool with a surrounding 2,920-square-foot pool deck. The new center would also have separate men’s, women’s, and family locker/changing rooms and restroom areas, staff changing and restroom areas, approximately 400 square feet of office space, a 760-square-foot activity
area, and lobby, storage and mechanical space. An approximately 6,230-square-foot, 10-lane outdoor pool would be constructed adjacent and to the south of the new aquatic center building. The outdoor pool would have a surrounding 3,240-square-foot pool deck, pool storage, and bleachers and would be fenced by a 15-foot-tall metal painted fence.
The proposed exterior materials for the aquatic center include painted cement plaster and composite wood cladding, with accent exterior glass detailing. The exterior pool metal fencing would be painted dark bronze.
The new aquatic center would be constructed in the location of the existing 22-space parking lot. Once the
new aquatic center is built, a new 13-space parking lot would be constructed in the location of the demolished pool, with access from Tennis Drive. Therefore, the project would shift the location of the existing Orange Pool parking lot and reduce the total vehicle parking spaces from 22 to 13 spaces. The
13 total spaces would include five Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible spaces, one ADA accessible electric-vehicle (EV) space, and two EV spaces. Vehicle ingress and egress into the parking lot would be provided from one-way driveways off Tennis Drive. Roadway and sidewalk frontage
improvements would be made along Tennis Drive.
The project would remove approximately 34 existing trees on-site that are concentrated within the location of the new aquatic center and plant approximately 272 replacement trees of a variety of species
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
5
throughout the site. The project would also include a large sculpture with accent lighting and a flagpole adjacent to the pedestrian walkway from the parking lot to the aquatic center.
Approximately 1,775 square feet of Low Impact Development (LID) treatment areas would be added on-site.
The project would replace and add new wastewater, water, and stormwater drainage throughout the project site. Four- to 16-inch stormwater drainage pipelines would be routed throughout the project site and connect to the stormwater pipeline on Orange Avenue.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This regulatory framework section identifies the state and local laws, statutes, guidelines, and regulations that govern the identification and treatment of cultural resources, as well as the analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources. The lead agency must consider the provisions and requirements of this regulatory framework when rendering decisions on projects that have the potential to affect cultural resources.
State Regulations
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), a division of the DPR, is responsible for carrying out the duties described in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and maintaining the CRHR. The state-level regulatory framework also includes CEQA, which requires the identification and mitigation of substantial adverse impacts that may affect the significance of eligible historical and archaeological resources.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze whether historical and/or archaeological resources may be adversely affected by a proposed project. Under CEQA, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.1). Answering this question is a two-part process: first, the determination must be made as to whether the proposed project involves cultural resources. Second, if cultural resources are present, the proposed project must be analyzed for a potential “substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, for the purposes of CEQA, historical resources are as follows:
• A resource listed in, or formally determined eligible…for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1; Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 4850 et seq.).
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in a historic resources survey meeting the requirements of Section PRC 5024.1(g).
• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that the lead agency determines to be eligible for national, state, or local landmark listing; generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant (and therefore a historic resource
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
6
under CEQA) if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (as defined in PRC Section 5024.1; 14 CCR Section 4852).
Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity (as defined above) does not meet the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource (PRC Section 5024.1). Pursuant to CEQA, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)).
Substantial Adverse Change and Indirect Impacts to Historical Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines specify that a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (Section 15064.5). Material impairment occurs when a project alters in an adverse manner or demolishes “those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion” or eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, the CRHR, or a local register. In addition, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, the “direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.”
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, study of a project under CEQA requires consideration of “the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d) further defines direct and indirect impacts as follows:
(1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment
which is caused by and immediately related to the project.
(2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment, which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment.
(3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In terms of archaeological resources, PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a “unique archaeological resource” as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
7
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
If it can be demonstrated that a proposed project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require that reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2(a)–(c)). CEQA notes that, if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered to be a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).
California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher are automatically listed in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by
local landmarks programs may be nominated for listing in the CRHR. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c), a resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the
following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:
• Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
• Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
• Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
As previously stated, resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance, and resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3.
Consultation with Native Americans
AB 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes in the CEQA process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups when a decision to undertake a project or determination that a project is complete (e.g., prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report), lead agencies are required to notify tribes who previously requested placement on the notification list. Such notification will be in writing and will include, at a minimum, a brief description of the project, lead agency contact information, and notice that
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
8
receipt of the letter serves as the initiation of a 30-day comment/response period. Consultation will occur at the Tribe’s request, and mitigation measures agreed upon during this consultation will be included
in the environmental documentation. Consultation may be considered concluded when parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource (see following subsection) or when, after a reasonable effort, a party, in good faith, determines that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Section 4 of AB 52 adds Sections 21074(a) and (b) to the PRC, which address tribal cultural resources
and cultural landscapes. Section 21074(a) defines tribal cultural resources as one of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Section 1(a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on tribal cultural resources should be considered under
CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural
resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2(a)). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3(a)).
Treatment of Human Remains
The disposition of burials falls first under the general prohibition on disturbing or removing human
remains under California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. More specifically, remains suspected to be Native American are treated under CEQA at CCR Section 15064.5; PRC Section 5097.98 illustrates the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If human remains are discovered
during construction, no further disturbance to the site shall occur, and the County Coroner must be notified (CCR Section 15064.5 and PRC 5097.98).
Local Regulations
City of South San Francisco Historic Preservation Ordinance
In 1986, the City established its Historic Preservation Program after adopting its Historic Preservation Ordinance. The initial ordinance created the former Historic Preservation Commission, which was tasked
with identifying and preserving significant historical properties through the City. Today, the Historic
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
9
Preservation Commission is no longer active, although the responsibilities and goals of the former commission have been taken on by the City’s Planning Commission. In addition to reviewing applications
and nominations of local historic resources, the Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing planning and building permit applications for projects that may alter historic resources, in addition to other historic preservation functions between the City and the community at large (South San Francisco Municipal Code §2.56.100).
South San Francisco Historic Resources Program
The City administers a designation program of local landmarks, which are known as South San Francisco Historic Resources (SSFHRs). Per the definition outlined in the City’s Municipal Code Section
2.56.090(g), a SSFHR is a “structure, a natural feature, or a site which is fifty years old or older, of architectural artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, archaeological, historical, political, or social significance to the citizens of the city of South San Francisco, the state, or the nation.”
To qualify for designation, a SSFHR must demonstrate significance under one or more of the following criteria (South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 2.56.110):
a) Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; and
b) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or
c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the city, the state, or the nation; or
d) Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or
e) Its exemplification of the best, remaining example of a particular architectural type in the city; or
f) Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; or
g) Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural and/or engineering design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or
h) Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic resource (for example, it is clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood); or
i) Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the city; or
j) Its potential of yielding significant information of archaeological interest; or
k) Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the city, the state or the nation. For example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some other feature which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco.
In addition to maintaining a list of SSFHRs, the City also maintains a list of potential SSFHRs. This list
was developed by the former Historic Preservation Commission and includes a categorized list of previously studied properties that have been ranked in terms of their likely significance and qualification as a SSFHR.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
10
PROJECT SETTING
Environmental Setting
The project area is located in South San Francisco on the southern end of the peninsula. It is positioned approximately 2.6 miles west of San Francisco Bay and 3.5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, which is located within the larger San Francisco Bay. The landform is comprised of hills and backslopes with soils comprised of Quaternary alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits (California Department of
Conservation [CDOC] 2023; Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2023). The existing project topography is primarily level with slopes ranging between 0 and 15 percent (NRCS 2023).
The project site is at the northeastern portion of Orange Memorial Park and encompasses the existing
Orange Pool, a parking lot, and some of the existing soccer fields. It is characterized as highly urbanized and surrounded by a residential neighborhood and City-managed park facilities. Colma Creek, a perennial creek that flows to San Francisco Bay, is the closest natural freshwater source and is located
approximately 400 feet to the southwest. A portion of Colma Creek has been channelized with a concrete
vertical and trapezoidal-shaped concrete drainage, channel walls, and bed.
Cultural Setting
The following sections provide background for the cultural and historical contexts of the project area, including a synopsis of the archaeological record in the greater region, summary of available
ethnographic literature and current status for tribal groups and native inhabitants of the region, and a summary of regional and local histories.
Pre-Contact Overview
The project is situated in what is generally described as the San Francisco Bay Region, which is one of eight arbitrary organizational divisions of the state (Moratto 1984). This region includes all of today’s San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties and portions of Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Beginning in 1948, the Central California Taxonomic
System (CCTS) was the primary temporal classification system being used and focused on burial practices and grave goods in the Early, Middle, and Late periods. This system, while outdated, became the building blocks for the current temporal schemes associated with California archaeology. The
prehistory of this region is currently divided into six periods: Early Holocene (Lower Archaic; 8,000–3,500 B.C.), Early period (Middle Archaic; 3,500–500 B.C.), Lower Middle period (Initial Upper Archaic; 500 B.C.–A.D. 430), Upper Middle period (Late Upper Archaic, A.D. 430–1050), Initial Late
period (Lower Emergent; A.D. 1050–1550), and Terminal Late period (A.D. 1550–1776) (Milliken et al. 2007:101, 114–118). The San Francisco Bay area is where three different systems for organizing the archaeological record meet—the Early-Middle-Later Period, the Archaic-Emergent, and a hybrid system (Milliken et al. 2007). Therefore, a variety of period names within each section are mentioned below. Table 1 provides a short synopsis of the varying time schemes for the East Bay Area, Contra Costa County Region.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
11
Table 1. East Bay Interior/Central Bay Shore Region Periods, Patterns, and Aspects
Geologic Period Early Holocene Mid-Holocene Late Holocene
Economic Period Paleo Lower Archaic Middle Archaic Upper Archaic Emergent
Shell Bead Period (Scheme D) Early Holocene Early Period Middle Period Late Period
E M T
M1 M2 M3 M4 MLT L1 L2
Central Bay Patterns Undesignated Lower Berkeley Pattern Upper Berkeley Pattern Augustine
Aspect Variant (Central Bayshore) Unknown Undesignated Stege Aspect Ellis Landing (Meganos: 1375–1225 B.P.)
Emeryville A
Aspect Variant (East Bay Interior) Undesignated Undesignated Undesignated Ellis Landing (Meganos: 1500–1000 B.P.)
Emeryville/Hollister
Timeline B.P. 11k 10k 9k 8k 7k 6k 5k 4k 3k 2k 1k 500
Source: Summarized from Milliken et al. (2007)
EARLY PERIOD/MIDDLE ARCHAIC (3,500–500 B.C.)
Archaeological sites characteristic of the Early period/Middle Archaic in the project area date to as early as 5,500 years ago and as late as 2,500 years ago (3,500–500 B.C.). Such sites often contain manos and metates (grinding stones), as well as many mortar fragments, indicating that acorns and/or various seeds formed an important part of the diet (Moratto 1984:201). The period is marked by the first cut bead, the grooved Olivella biplicata rectangle bead (Vellanoweth 2001). Mortars and pestles begin to appear in the Bay Area archaeological record during this period. Also on the peninsula coast, Olivella rectangular beads (type L1) and Rossi square-stemmed and large side-notched projectile points are diagnostic of the Early period (Hylkema 2002:250).
LOWER MIDDLE PERIOD/INITIAL UPPER ARCHAIC (500 B.C.–A.D. 430)
People inhabiting the San Francisco Bay region during the Lower Middle period (also known as the Berkeley period) practiced a maritime hunting and gathering economy. Large accumulations of shellfish remains, or “shell mounds,” formed over hundreds, or even thousands, of years through accretion at village sites fronting the Bay that were reused seasonally or year-round (Lightfoot 1997:135). These numerous shell mounds contain hundreds of burials as well as ceremonial items, house floors, hearths, and storage pits, indicating they were used as burial, ceremonial, and residential places (Lightfoot 1997:131–136; Lightfoot and Luby 2002:276–277).
Artifacts typical of the Lower Middle period include spire-lopped Olivella, Olivella saucer beads, and
circular abalone (Haliotis spp.) ornaments (Milliken et al. 2007:115). Assemblages generally have a relatively small frequency of flaked stone points; projectile points are commonly contracting stemmed and lanceolate types, some of which are made from obsidian (Hylkema 2002). Burials are variable-flexed
and semi-flexed with inconsistent orientation.
Milling implements include large and small boulder or cobble mortars and various types of pestles, indicating that acorns formed an important part of the diet. In the South Bay, processing of hard seeds
continued to be important throughout this period, as evidenced by the number of milling slabs and handstones in the artifact assemblages from that area (Hylkema 2002:244–245, 252). Other plant
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
12
resources included hazel nuts, cattail seeds, grass, and soaproot bulbs; the latter were roasted in earth ovens.
UPPER MIDDLE PERIOD/LATE UPPER ARCHAIC (A.D. 430–1050)
The Upper Middle period/Late Upper Archaic is marked by the collapse of the Olivella saucer bead trade network at circa A.D. 430 in the Bay Region (Milliken et al. 2007:116). The period is also marked
by shifts and changes in subsistence practices, foraging, and land use patterns that begin to reflect patterns known from historic-period Native American groups in the area. A substantial increase in the intensity of subsistence exploitation, including fishing, hunting, and gathering (particularly the acorn), evidenced
in the archaeological record, correlates directly with population growth (Moratto 1984:211–214). Bow and arrow technology, the use of harpoons, and tubular tobacco pipes appear during this period. However, a greater emphasis is placed on the procurement and processing of vegetal foods, especially acorns, as evidenced in the increase of milling tools, especially the mortar and pestle. Both coiled and twined basketry were used as domestic and ceremonial items. Population size and the number of settlements increased during this period, although the large shell mound villages of the Lower Middle period were apparently no longer favored residential places (Lightfoot and Luby 2002:264, 277). There appears to be an increase in grave goods, particularly during the Upper Middle period, compared with fewer grave goods identified during the Lower Middle period components in Bay Area sites.
During the Upper Middle period, the climate fluctuated between cooler, wetter periods and warmer, drier periods. During cooler, wetter periods, alluvial deposition increased, with comparatively little deposition
occurring in the drier intervals. Extended periods of relatively little rainfall, referred to as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA), produced droughts across the West between about A.D. 650 and 850 and again in the Late period between about A.D. 1150 and 1250. The dry conditions during the MCA may
be related to the abandonment of shell mound villages as primary residential locations, which began around A.D. 700 (Lightfoot and Luby 2002:277, 279). Settlement strategies were apparently reorganized and focused on a more dispersed pattern, with the establishment of both coastal and interior habitation
areas, coinciding with the exploitation of seasonally available resources.
INITIAL LATE PERIOD/LOWER EMERGENT (A.D. 1050–1550)
The Late period ushers in a time of status differentiation and the rise of secret societies and cults and associated traits. Exchange networks, with the use of clamshell disk beads as a form of currency, expanded during this period. Exchange items included magnesite, steatite, Olivella beads, and obsidian. Compared with the Middle period, the use and occurrence of shell beads with burials blossomed (Milliken
and Bennyhoff 1993). Abalone (Haliotis spp.) banjo pendants may represent the introduction and spread of the Kuksu cult, which began during the transition from the Middle to Late period in the Bay Area (Hylkema 2002:260). The magnitude of non-dietary Olivella shells in coastal sites during the Late period,
coupled with a concomitant increase of the shells in mortuary contexts throughout central California during this period, attests to the rise of both exchange networks and status differentiation, with coastal peoples supplying the shells to interior groups. Partial cremation appears or reappears during this time and
also marks an increase in social stratification along with an increased diversity of grave goods in the wealthiest of graves (Milliken et al. 2007:217).
During the Late period along the peninsula coast, site assemblages indicate there is an increase in hunting of birds and marine mammals, especially sea otters. At the same time, there is a decrease in terrestrial fauna in the archaeological record (Hylkema 2002:254–255).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
13
TERMINAL LATE PERIOD/PROTOHISTORIC AMBIGUITIES (A.D. 1550–1776)
The Terminal Late period is marked by the abrupt disappearance of the Olivella sequin and cup beads ca. A.D. 1500 to 1550 (Milliken et al. 2007:117). During this period and before the Spanish arrived in full force, a cultural shift was occurring. The North Bay began to take a more dominant role in the production of new technology and trade items, including clamshell disk beads, the toggle harpoon, hopper mortar,
corner-notched projectile points, and magnesite tube beads. The precise reason for this cultural shift is unknown but could have been driven by conflict between groups or the spread of European diseases northward from Mexico prior to A.D. 1776 (Milliken et al. 2007:117–118).
Ethnography
CHOCHENYO OHLONE REGION
The area immediately surrounding the project area was traditionally known as the Chochenyo linguistic group of the Ohlone, which compose a branch of the Penutian language family (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978). Within this regional group were several tribelets inhabiting the East Bay from the Carquinez straight to the southeastern border with the Tamayen-speaking groups of the South Bay region and along the western side of the East Bay hills in the northern Diablo range bordering the Bay Miwok territory.
The Chochenyo Ohlone people were not affiliated as a single political entity at the time of European contact, but consisted of 14 or more separate and politically independent tribelets, making the Chochenyo-speaking Ohlone the largest group of the Bay Area region (Milliken et al. 2009).
In the northern region of the East Bay along the San Pablo Bay in the Vallejo/Benicia area were the Huchiun-Aguasto, whose borders met with the Coast Miwok to the west and the Patwin to the north. Across the Carquinez Straight to the south resided the Carquin, who bordered territories of the Bay
Miwok to the east and the Patwin to the north. To the west of the Carquin resided the Hutchian groups, who managed the territory from the Berkeley Hills to the bay shore encompassing the modern cities of El Cerrito, Emeryville, Berkeley, Alameda, and most of Oakland. To the south of the Hutchian resided the Jalquin-Irgin, who inhabited the modern Hayward region and San Leandro Creek watershed. With borders of the territory abutting the Bay Miwok, the Jalquin-Irgin were said to have been a bilingual speaking group. The Tuibun inhabited the Coyote Creek area and the mouth of Alameda Creek; the Causen territory encompassed the Sunol Valley, the Tuanan resided in the mountain areas of Alameda Creek and the Arroyo del Valle, and the Luecha groups of the southern East Bay ranged the area southeast of Livermore and bordered the Tamyen-speaking Ohlone and the western edge of the Delta Yokuts to the east. North of the Tamyen border tribelets and within the interior of the East Bay were the Causen of the Sunol area, Pelnen of the Pleasanton region, Yulien who inhabited the Livermore area, Seunen of the San Ramon/Dublin region, Ssouyen who managed the Blackhawk/Tassajara area, and Ssaoam who ranged from the southern region of Mt. Diablo to the Byron area, bordering with the Delta Yokuts (Hodge 1910).
Spanish mission records, diaries, and journals have provided most of the information for use in studying the Chochenyo Ohlone people, as little ethnographical research has been conducted in the twentieth century (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978:495). The most thorough study, by Milliken (1995), used mission records, and Margolin’s book (1978) reconstructs Native American life in the Bay Area.
Each tribelet’s territory contained a main village and smaller satellite villages. Usually these were situated along a river or stream for easy access to water. Coastal people did not build right on the shoreline, but usually on an overlooking bluff. Dwellings were domed structures consisting of a tule- or grass-covered framework of poles, with a rectangular doorway and central hearth (Levy 1978:492). The Chochenyo Ohlone people both buried and cremated the deceased, sometimes depending on the availability of sufficient firewood, though based on ethnographic inquiries, cremation appears to have been most
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
14
prevalent (Kroeber 1925). This was conducted on the day of the death, along with burning the property of the deceased. There is no mention of cemeteries associated with the villages (Levy 1978:490–491).
The rich resources of the ocean, bays, valleys, and mountains provided the Ohlone people with food and all their material needs (Levy 1978:491–492). The primary food staple was the acorn, supplemented by a great variety of animal and plant resources. Four species of oak were utilized, depending on availability and the desirability of the species: coast live, valley, tanbark, and black. Buckeye, laurel, pine nuts, and hazelnuts were eaten. The seeds of dock, chia and other salvias, tarweed, and holly-leaf cherry were collected and ground into meal. The plant diet also consisted of several berry-producing plants, wild onions, carrots, tule roots, and greens of clover and other annuals. There were also large and small game, consisting of deer, elk, antelope, bear, and mountain lion. Seals and stranded whales onshore were taken,
and smaller game included raccoon, ground squirrels, woodrat, mouse, mole, dog, rabbit, and jackrabbit. Migrating waterfowl were the most important bird resource, which included geese, ducks, and coots; local birds taken were pigeon, quail, and hawks, but not eagle, owls, ravens, or vultures. Freshwater fish included steelhead, salmon, and sturgeon, while the ocean provided shark, sardine, and lampreys. All varieties of reptiles were eaten (but not amphibians), as well as a selection of insects. Marine resources were also relied on heavily, as much of Chochenyo Ohlone territory borders the East Bay region. The
reliance on shellfish, particularly mussels, and other marine resources (i.e., fish, sea lions, and beached whales) is evidenced by the extensive shell mounds that line the San Francisco Bay and adjacent areas, which are said to be the richest in any part of the state (Kroeber 1925:466–467).
A wide array of tools, implements, and enclosures was used by the Chochenyo Ohlone people for hunting and gathering natural resources. Among those used for hunting land mammals and birds were the bow and arrow, traps and snares, deer’s-head disguises, bolas, nets and net sinkers, and enclosures/blinds. Communal hunting drives were employed for rabbits. Nets and poisons were used to harvest fish. Tule watercrafts were used for transportation and hunting fish and waterfowl on the enclosed bays and marshes. Many plants were collected using wooden tools: long poles for dislodging acorns and pinecones, fire-hardened digging sticks for roots, and beaters for dislodging seeds. Once collected, seeds, roots, and nuts were placed in burden baskets and transported for processing or storage (Levy 1978:491).
The Chochenyo Ohlone people used a variety of tools to process food resources. These included portable stone mortars and pestles, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, anvils, woven strainers, winnowers, leaching and boiling baskets, woven drying trays, and knives. Various foods were baked in earthen ovens. Wooden
paddles were carved for stirring food in the boiling baskets. There were shell spoons, basket dippers, and mush bowls for serving the food, and woven water jugs and storage containers for keeping it afterwards. The presence of exotic items such as obsidian, steatite, and shell indicates that the Chochenyo Ohlone people traded with adjacent coastal groups and mountain tribes (Levy 1978:493).
Not all resources were gathered at home. There was trading with the Plains Miwok, Sierra Miwok, and Yokuts. The Chochenyo Ohlone people provided mussels, abalone shells, dried abalone, and salt to the Yokuts and Olivella shells to the Miwok.
Historic Overview
Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish period (1769–1822), the Mexican period (1822–1848), and the American period (1848–present). Although there
were brief visits by Spanish, Russian, and British explorers from 1529 to 1769, the beginning of Spanish settlement in California occurred in 1769 with a settlement at San Diego and the first (Mission San Diego de Alcalá) of 21 missions established from 1769 to 1823.
European exploration along the coastal region of California began as early as 1542 when Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo sailed the coastline of California. The region was not extensively explored until the Portolá and
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
15
Anza expedition in 1762, with permanent settlement by individuals of European descent occurring in the early part of the nineteenth century (California State Lands Commission 2014; Gudde 1998). Word of
Mexican victory, after a decade of revolt against the Spanish crown, reached California in 1822, marking the beginning of the Mexican period. This period was characterized by an extensive era of land grant awards. As a result of the California Land Act of 1851, there were 813 claims of Spanish and Mexican land grants, many of which were patented by this time. These land grants were presented to the Surveyor General’s Office and to the Land Commission, thus making them legally owned properties and suggesting the area was truly settled (California State Lands Commission 2014).
With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican American War, California became a territory of the United States (National Archives 2022). The discovery of gold
in 1848 at Sutter’s Mill near Sacramento and the resulting Gold Rush influenced the history of the state and the nation (CDOC 2022). The rush of tens of thousands of people to the gold fields had a devastating impact on the lives of indigenous Californians, with the introduction and concentration of diseases, the loss of land and territory (including traditional hunting and gathering locales), violence, malnutrition, and starvation. Thousands of settlers and immigrants continued to pour into the state, particularly after the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 (CDOC 2022).
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The area of present-day South San Francisco was originally part of Rancho Buri Buri, a Mexican-era land grant owned by Jose Antonio Sanchez, who was a prominent soldier stationed at El Presidio Real de San Francisco. Established by Sanchez in the 1820s and confirmed by the Mexican territorial government in 1833 in recognition of his military service, Rancho Buri Buri was a nearly 15,000-acre rancho located along the western shore of San Francisco Bay extending from the San Bruno Mountains in the north
to present-day Burlingame in the south. The land was primarily used for raising cattle, although Sanchez cultivated a variety of crops and constructed an embarcadero to provide shipping access throughout the San Francisco Bay region (Daly 2022: 6). Through complications with Sanchez’ will, the rancho was split
amongst family members while other portions were sold off to private buyers. Following the annexation of California by the United States in 1848, many of the Sanchez heirs sold land in order to pay off various debts, taxes, and legal fees protracted in efforts to legally retain the rights to the former rancho lands.
Many who purchased portions of the former ranch continued to utilize the land for cattle grazing, including Charles Lux and Herman Miller, two German immigrants who had arrived in San Francisco during the initial waves of the Gold Rush and established themselves as wholesale butchers. Individually, Lux and Miller both bought thousands of acres of the former Rancho Buri Buri lands, and eventually formed a business partnership in 1858 that took advantage of the then relatively cheap swaths of overlooked land throughout California, which in turn resulted in holdings of hundreds of thousands of acres throughout the state for cattle grazing. The Miller & Lux Company eventually became one of the largest landholding entities within the United States during this period (Taper 1967).
Of the Rancho Buri Buri lands, Lux had purchased a portion that aligned with the original Sanchez hacienda. Lux developed a country estate in the vicinity, named Baden after the Alsatian town located on the French-German border. This generally coincided with three important developments. The first was
the creation of San Mateo County in 1856, which was separated from the consolidated City and County of San Francisco at the request of rural citizens along the peninsula. The second was the construction of the San Francisco & San Jose Railroad that connected the two namesake cities by 1864, which provided
access to multiple Peninsula communities. Third was development of San Francisco’s “Butchertown, which was a collection of wholesale butchers, stockyards, slaughterhouses, meat packing facilities, tanneries, and similar operations that were required by ordinance to be far removed from the main center
of San Francisco due to the horrendous environmental and atmospheric conditions associated with the industry (Daly 2022).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
16
The Butchertown district had a number of iterations, the first of which was destroyed in a fire in 1864, and the second was shifted further south and consolidated in the area of present-day Bayview and Hunters
Point. Miller and Lux, both individually and as a partnership, were prominent leaders in the development and operation of the Butchertown slaughterhouse district, utilizing their financial and political connections, as well as proximity to the district, to exert control and coordinated with other meat packers and cattle barons to establish a monopoly over San Francisco’s meat industry (Guerrero 2022). By the late 1880s, Butchertown had earned an infamous reputation for its squalid conditions. The growth of San Francisco southwards, coupled with an increased awareness of public health and the development of slaughterhouses and meat packing facilities in Oakland, put the operations of Butchertown under increased scrutiny (Guerrero 2022). This coincided with the invention of the refrigerated boxcar, which in turn led to midwestern meatpackers expanding their holdings. In 1888, a year following the death of Charles Lux, the Armour Packing Company of Omaha—an affiliate of the Union Stock Yards conglomerate—partnered with Lux & Miller to develop a new meat packing facility in the San Francisco
Bay Area. This resulted in the founding of the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (SSFLIC) in 1891, which served as the local real estate arm of the Union Stock company and began acquiring thousands around the former Lux estate of Baden to construct the new stockyards,
slaughterhouses, offices, hotels, residences, and other aspects of a company town to support the new packing district and its workers under the name of the Western Meat Company. Along with the construction of the new stock yards, slaughterhouses, and meat packing plants was a Southern Pacific
Railroad spur line that reached the new Baden Station. With the new meat industry facilities located east of Baden Station, the town of Baden was laid out to the north, forming a residential area and business district north of what is now San Bruno Avenue (Daly 2022).
In addition to the meat industry, other industrial applications soon followed to include paint and solvent manufacturing, brick and terra cotta making, steel mills, machine shops, and a lumber yard, solidifying the community’s industrial character. This industrial growth correlated with the growth of the town, which was renamed South San Francisco, and resulted expanded shipping facilities along the San Francisco Bay, as well as increased transportation connections to San Francisco through a streetcar line
and later the Southern Pacific Railroad’s Bayshore Cutoff. In the aftermath of the 1906 Earthquake and Fire, the South San Francisco industries underwent a boom supplying the rebuilding effort, while the town grew exponentially to a population of approximately 2,000 as more residents relocated from San
Francisco. In 1908, the City of South San Francisco was incorporated, partially in response by the SSFLIC to San Mateo County’s objection to the development of a copper smelter in the area (Daly 2022). In the decades following incorporation, more industries were established in South San Francisco,
including increased steel works and shipbuilding, which led the local chamber of commerce to establish South San Francisco as “The Industrial City.” In turn, the industrial growth drove increased commercial, residential, and civic development in the young city. This pattern of development was expanded significantly during World War II as the industrial, residential, and commercial demands of wartime production in the San Francisco Bay Area catalyzed explosive growth in the City. By 1948, South San Francisco was home to 46 industries with a local population of nearly 16,000 (City of South San Francisco 2019)
In the years following World War II, South San Francisco saw increased commercial and residential development as new suburban developments were constructed in the remaining vacant land outside the City’s central commercial and industrial cores. With the growing suburbs to the north and the expanding presence of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to the south (a major employer for South San Francisco), the City of South San Francisco was largely built out by the 1970s. While the City had long been known as a center of heavy industry, this had begun to change in the post-war years, partially through the increasing environmental awareness around the San Francisco Bay, as well as a shift to
lighter services, including transportation and aviation, as well as new emerging industries, such as pharmaceuticals, technology, and biotechnology. Through the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty first, the heavy industrial character of South San Francisco was redeveloped to reflect distribution
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
17
centers, commercial office parks, corporate campuses, and new hotels that catered to nearby SFO (City of South San Francisco 2019).
Parks and Recreation in South San Francisco
The initial development of South San Francisco was largely in the model of the industrial company town. The SSFLIC owned most of the land in the area and focused primarily on the development of industry,
followed by the central commercial district and residential neighborhoods. At this time, civic development was primarily focused on infrastructure—water, electricity, sewage, paved roads, etc.—as well as administrative necessities, such as schools and a new City Hall. As the twentieth century
progressed, the fledgling city grew from its initial company town roots and residents of South San Francisco began lobbying for new recreational facilities. This coincided with the rise of the parks and conservation movements, which strongly advocated for publicly accessible parklands in both urban areas and perceived natural wildernesses, as well as the lead-up to the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco, which put pressure on the entirety of the San Francisco Bay Area to undertake projects that would show well on the world stage (The Enterprise 1913). Despite this pressure, the realization of public recreational facilities in South San Francisco would be slow to materialize.
The first recreational development in South San Francisco was the 1921 construction of a new baseball field and grandstand at South San Francisco High School. Although relatively small in scale and primarily serving as a spectator facility, the initial baseball field solidified the sport as an important pastime in the community (The Enterprise 1921; San Mateo Daily Journal 2010). Under increasing
pressure, the SSFLIC granted approximately 20 acres to the City for the development of its first public park, which would ultimately become present-day Orange Memorial Park. The conditions of the deal outlined that the SSFLIC would construct the streets that would surround the park, while the City would
be responsible for paving and upkeep (San Mateo Daily Journal 2010). The park, then referred to as Orange Avenue Park, was slow to develop. Both the SSFLIC and City put in limited resources to clearing and grading the land, which continued to drag out through the 1920s. However, by the 1930s,
renewed pressure led to the increased development of Orange Avenue Park, as well as its subsequent expansion, as South San Francisco’s main urban park.
Efforts to develop other parks were undertaken, most notably in 1930 with a special election which called for the City to issue bonds for recreation-specific capital improvement projects, which included the construction of two new City parks, as well as a municipal swimming pool, in addition to continued improvements to Orange Avenue Park. Proponents for the initiative cited the lack of recreational opportunities for children and the issues related to increased delinquency. Despite the overt support from the local Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, voters ultimately rejected the initiative (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930a, 1930f). Many continued to push for increased recreation throughout the 1930s, although the political pressure for the City to expand recreation in South San Francisco subsided as the United States entered World War II.
In the post-war years, the City began re-examining their recreational facilities as the community grew industrially, commercially, and residentially. As with other communities in California and the broader United States, the development of large suburban residential neighborhoods in South San Francisco
would often include parks as part of the planning process, often with a baseball diamond, open play area, and playgrounds. Other efforts were more ad hoc, such as with the development of the City’s first community center, which involved the reuse of the former Magnolia Avenue School (The Times 1960a). However, at the same time, the City recognized the increased recreational needs that came with this expanded growth, as well as the importance of recreation as a promotional tool for luring both businesses and residents. The City began to develop recreational plans to address short-term and long-term goals,
often in consultation with the public. Out of these recreational plans, the City prioritized a series of parks and recreation projects throughout South San Francisco (The Times, 1960b). This included a number of
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
18
new parks throughout San Francisco ranging from small neighborhood parks with playgrounds to larger athletic fields, open spaces, and community centers. This trend of recreational expansion would continue
throughout the remainder of the century to include networks of hiking and biking trails, monuments, a marina, dog parks, and a variety of greenbelts and pocket parks located throughout the community. Today, South San Francisco has over 250 acres of dedicated parkland with a variety of landscapes, facilities, and uses (Gates + Associates 2015).
Orange Memorial Park
In 1925, after increased pressure to develop recreational facilities in the community, the SSFLIC granted over 20 acres of land west of the civic center of South San Francisco for the City’s development and use as a public park. Located on lands straddling Coloma Creek, the land was marshland and not ideal for development as it was prone to seasonal flooding with thick vegetation. The transaction included the stipulation that SSFLIC build streets alongside both sides of the park, although it appears that the actual park development was left open ended (San Mateo Daily Journal 2010). Efforts to drain and grade the
land and remove vegetation were slow, and additional grading and clearing work was required for new roadways to connect the park to South San Francisco. Many projects during this time used volunteer community labor; however, slow progress spurred the City into action (The Enterprise and the South San
Francisco Journal 1925). Following land reclamation, the first improvement at Orange Avenue Park was the construction of a baseball diamond in 1927 to the then-professional league standards(The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal 1927).
In 1928, the City participated in a complicated land swap where it provided land to the Marchetti Motor company in exchange for an additional eight acres of land at Orange Avenue Park (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1934). The following year, the City began planning improvements to the park, bundled with developments of two additional park sites as part of a capital improvements program. This was in response to vocal members of the community, which continued to advocate for increased recreation and playground facilities to provide a variety of options, particularly for South San Francisco youth (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930d).
In the lead-up to the special election for the capital improvements bond, which included a measure for park improvements and a new municipal swimming pool, the City released a conceptual plan demonstrating what could be done at Orange Avenue Park. Designed by Homer Pack, an engineer and designer for the San Francisco Playground Commission, the layout included an immense expansion of the
recreational facilities (Figure 3). To supplement the existing baseball diamond, a new baseball diamond adjoining an open meadow for general play would be constructed to the northeast, along with a field house and a series of play equipment. This would also coincide with a collection of court facilities for
basketball, tennis, handball, bocce, and volleyball, among others. At the northernmost area of the park lands would be a football field, as well as Palonni—a traditional Italian game similar to tennis. At the northwest corner of the park would be an expansive meadow for open play, which included a robust peripheral planting scheme to create defined picnic spaces. This area of the park would also include a bandstand facing the meadow, along with barbecue pits and a wading pool. Other facilities referenced in the plan included comfort stations, showers and changing rooms, as well as curvilinear walking paths and dedicated surface parking, all of which would be defined alongside a robust planting scheme (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930e). However, the grand plans for Orange Avenue Park and expansion of other recreational facilities were ultimately defeated by voters. The most common reason associated with the defeat was poor voter turnout, although the economic challenges of the period may have been an important factor (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930f). However,
the City introduced some new uses to the park land, specifically converting the westernmost corner of the park into a plant nursery. These plants grown would be used in City beautification projects, while also reducing procurement costs (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal, 1930b).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
19
Figure 3. Conceptual site plan of Orange Avenue Park showing proposed developments
associated with the 1930 special election to issue bonds for parks and recreation development in
South San Francisco (source: The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930e).
The late 1930s saw a flurry of activity at Orange Avenue Park as advocates continued to call for improvement to the park as the community’s primary recreational venue. Improvements included the
construction of a new baseball fence in 1936, a dedicated picnic areas and a playground in 1937, a second baseball diamond at the southern corner of the property, new tennis courts at the northeast corner, and the development of an archery range, all in 1938 (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1937, 1938b, 1938c, 1938d). However, despite theseof improvements, by 1941 much of the expansive parkland remained largely open and undeveloped (Figure 4) (University of California, Santa Barbara Library [UCSB] 1941). Subsequent changes to Orange Avenue Park occurred in the years following World War II, including the acquisition two acres of land and the change of the park’s name to Orange Memorial Park as a dedication to the living memory of the local service members of both World War I and World War II (Garcia 2002).
During the 1950s, the City developed a long-range recreation master development plan, which identified several park and recreational opportunities, including expanded community center facilities, athletic fields, and a municipal swimming pool. While many of these amenities were slated for Orange Memorial Park, many of the City’s efforts were drawn towards developing parks and recreational facilities in the growing residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the increased demand for new schools resulted in the
construction of other recreational facilities, although these school-owned gymnasiums, athletic centers,
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
20
playgrounds, and swimming pools were often available for public use in coordination between the City and the school district. However, by 1965, Orange Memorial Park had undergone some notable
improvements, including the construction of several new recreational baseball fields, the installation of several picnic sites and a larger group picnic shelter, and what appears to be the construction of a new comfort station and a wading pool (Figure 5) (UCSB 1965). In the late 1960s, substantial changes included the construction a new corporation yard at the northern corner of the park in 1967, which house the City’s parks and recreation maintenance and operations, and the construction of the Orange Pool building in 1970.
Figure 4. 1941 aerial photograph of Orange
Memorial Park (source: UCSB Aerial
Photograph Library 1941).
Figure 5. 1965 aerial photograph of Orange
Memorial Park (source: UCSB Aerial
Photograph Library 1965).
The park continued to evolve in subsequent decades with the installation of the “eternal flame” public art installation in 1984, the addition of more bocce courts in 1990, the construction and renovation of the playgrounds in 1998, and the construction of new basketball courts and soccer field. “Eternal Flame” (Veteran’s Eternal Flame) is a sculpture by artist Church Thompson and was originally displayed at City Hall in the 1960s, and in 1984, the City Council decided to move the sculpture to its current location and
to restore the tiles. In 2002, the Cultural Arts Commission completed another restoration of the tile (Editor, 2013). In the twenty-first century, more drastic changes to the park included the reconfiguration of the walking paths, the installation of a new sculpture garden at the southwest corner in 2003, the
construction of the Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building in 2008, and the construction of a skate park in 2009 (San Mateo Daily Journal 2010). Today Orange Memorial Park encompasses 28 acres and includes a variety of recreational spaces and facilities that reflect the current recreational needs and tastes
of South San Francisco, while also echoing the nearly 100 years of the park as a central recreational fixture in the community.
IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
Records Search
On April 26, 2023, SWCA requested a records search from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California, to identify known cultural resources and previous cultural resource studies
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
21
within 0.25 mile of the project area. A letter dated May 24, 2023, from the NWIC summarizing the results of the records search (NWIC File No. 22-1663) is provided in Appendix A of this report.
Prior Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area
The CHRIS search identified 29 previously conducted cultural resource studies within 0.25 mile of the project area. Portions of 11of these studies intersect the project area, one of which (S-049780) is a multivolume report. However, most of these are literature reviews, regional studies, management
planning, research reports, and dissertations. The project area has not been subject to recent, location-specific archaeological survey. The results of the CHRIS records search for previous studies conducted within the 0.25-mile radius of the project area are listed in Tables 2 and 3 but have not been
carried over in further discussion.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
22
Table 2. Previous Studies within the Project Area
NWIC Report
Number Title of Study Type of Study Author Year
S-000848 A Summary of Knowledge of the Central and Northern California Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas, Vol. III, Socioeconomic Conditions, Chapter 7: Historical &
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological, Architectural/historical, Management/planning, Other
research
David A. Fredrickson; The Anthropology Laboratory, Sonoma State College; Winzler &
Kelly Consulting Engineers
1976
S-009462 Identification and Recording of Prehistoric Petroglyphs in
Marin and Related Bay Area Counties
Archaeological,
Thesis/dissertation Teresa Ann Miller; San Francisco
State University 1977
S-009580 The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California's San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival
Other research, Thesis/dissertation Randall T. Milliken; Sonoma State University 1983
S-009583 Ecology of the Pre-Spanish San Francisco Bay Area Thesis/dissertation David W. Mayfield; San
Francisco State University 1978
S-015529 California, Oregon, and Washington: Archaeological Resource Study Archaeological, Other research Robert L. Gearhart II, Clell L. Bond, Steven D. Hoyt, James H.
Cleland, James Anderson,
Pandora Snethcamp, Gary
Wesson, Jack Neville, Kim
Marcus, Andrew York, and Jerry Wilson; Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.; Dames & Moore
1993
S-018217 Cultural Resource Evaluations for the Caltrans District
04 Phase 2 Seismic Retrofit Program, Status Report Archaeological,
Architectural/historical, Other
research
Glenn Gmoser; California
Department of Transportation 1996
S-030204 The Distribution and Antiquity of the California Pecked Curvilinear Nucleated (PCN) Rock Art Tradition. Archaeological, Other research Donna L. Gillette; University of California, Berkeley 2003
S-032596 The Central California Ethnographic Community
Distribution Model, Version 2.0, with Special Attention to
the San Francisco Bay Area, Cultural Resources
Inventory of Caltrans District 4 Rural Conventional Highways
Archaeological, Other
research Randall Milliken, Jerome King,
and Patricia Mikkelsen;
Consulting in the Past; Far
Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.
2006
S-033600 Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area
Counties in Caltrans District 4 Archaeological, Other
research Jack Meyer and Jeff Rosenthal;
Far Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.
2007
S-049780 San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological
Resources, Caltrans District 4
Archaeological, Management/planning, Other
research
Brian F. Byrd, Adrian R. Whitaker, Patricia J. Mikkelsen,
and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal;
California Department of
Transportation, District 4
2017
S-049780a FHWA_2016_0615_001, Caltrans District 4 Archaeological Context OHP Correspondence Julianne Polanco; California Office of Historic Preservation 2016
Table 3. Previous Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area
NWIC Report
Number Title of Study Type of Study Author Year
S-003043 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Colma
Wastewater Collection System, Town of Colma, San
Mateo County, California
Archaeological, Field study David Chavez 1977
S-011396 Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the
Proposed WTG-WEST, Inc., Los Angeles to San
Francisco and Sacramento, California: Fiber Optic
Cable Project
Archaeological, Field study BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1989
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
23
NWIC Report
Number Title of Study Type of Study Author Year
S-013543 Initial Archaeological Evaluation of Proposed Park
Additions and a Portion of the Colma Creek Channel
for the Orange Memorial Park Master Plan EIR, South
San Francisco
Archaeological, Field study Matthew R. Clark; MRC
Consulting 1992
S-016687 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, Archaeological
Survey Report
Archaeological, Excavation,
Field study Carolyn Rice 1994
S-016687a BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, Archaeological
Resources Technical Report
Archaeological, Field study,
Management/planning Carolyn Rice 1994
S-017192 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, Historic Architectural
Survey Technical Report
Architectural/historical, Field
study Laurence H. Shoup, Mark
Brack, Nancy Fee, and Bruno
Giberti;
Archaeological/Historical Consultants
1994
S-017192a BART-SFP Extension Project, Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, Historic Architectural Survey Technical Report, Volume II: Alternative VI, Highway 380 to Trousdale Drive in Burlingame
Architectural/historical, Field
study Laurence H. Shoup and Ward
Hill; Archaeological/Historical
Consultants
1995
S-017192b UMTA900828A; Project: BART Extension from Colma
to San Francisco International Airport OHP Correspondence Cherilyn Widdell; California
Office of Historic Preservation 1995
S-017730 Colma Creek Zone Drainage Improvements Project,
Cultural Resources Technical Report Archaeological, Field study Carolyn Rice 1995
S-022656 Initial Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance of
Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, California, with
Preliminary Resource Evaluation and Management
Recommendations
Archaeological, Excavation,
Field study Matthew R. Clark; Holman &
Associates 2000
S-022656a An Addendum to: Initial Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut Avenue in the City of South San Francisco,
California
Archaeological, Excavation, Field study Matthew R. Clark; Holman & Associates 2000
S-022656b Final Report: Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance, Assessment of Potential Project Impacts, and Resource Management
Recommendations for the Chestnut Creek Senior
Housing Project, South San Francisco
Archaeological, Excavation, Field study Matthew R. Clark; Holman & Associates 2000
S-033611 South San Francisco Wet Weather Program: Phase II Altered APE & Effect on MOA (letter report) Archaeological, Management/planning,
Other research
Matthew R. Clark; Holman & Associates 2006
S-035507 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project, Section 106 Compliance for the South San Francisco Wet Weather Program: Phase II
Archaeological Monitoring Report
Archaeological, Monitoring Matthew R. Clark; Holman & Associates 2008
S-035507a City of San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project,
Section 106 Compliance for Phase 3: The Colma Creek Bank Protection Project Archaeological
Monitoring Report
Archaeological, Field study,
Monitoring Matthew R. Clark and Kathryn
Entricken; Holman & Associates
2003
S-035507b City of San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Historic
Properties Inventory Research and Subsurface Reconnaissance for Proposed Phase 2 Facilities (EPA
020713 A)
Archaeological, Excavation,
Field study Matthew R. Clark; Holman &
Associates 2007
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
24
NWIC Report
Number Title of Study Type of Study Author Year
S-039033 Historic Property Survey Report, Federal Aid Proj. No.
5177 (028), Grand Avenue/Magnolia Avenue Traffic
Signal in South San Francisco
Archaeological, Evaluation,
Field study Sunshine Psota; Holman &
Associates 2012
S-039033a ASR Short Form for Local Assistance Projects,
Federal-Aid Proj. No. HSIP - 5177 (028), Grand
Avenue/Magnolia Avenue Traffic Signal in South San
Francisco
Archaeological, Field study Sunshine Psota; Holman &
Associates 2012
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project
The CHRIS results indicated that 13 previously recorded cultural resources are located within a 0.25-mile radius of the project area and only one of these sites is within the project area (Table 4 and Table 5; Appendix A). Site P-41-000497 (CA-SMA-357H) is a historic 50-foot segment of railroad tracks that connected the two northern branches of Southern Pacific Railroad’s railway from San Francisco to Los Angeles. This site is located in South San Francisco and crosses Linden Avenue just south of Railroad
Avenue. This site was originally recorded in 2000 and the DPR form notes that the tracks are set in modern concrete (see Appendix C).
Table 4. Resources within of the APE
P- Designation Trinomial Resource Type Description NHRP Evaluation Distance to Project
Area
P-41-000497 CA-SMA-000357H Historic Structure Railroad grade Ineligible Intersects
Table 5. Resources within 0.5-Mile Radius of the APE
P-Designation Associated Report Resource Type Description NHRP Evaluation Distance to
Project Area
P-41-000323 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000342 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000343 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000344 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000345 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000346 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000347 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000348 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000349 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000350 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000351 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
P-41-000352 S-017192 Building Historic Building Ineligible Outside
Sacred Lands File Search and Initial Native American
Coordination
A search of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested on April 26, 2023, with the intent of identifying culturally sensitive areas and obtaining a list of Native American contacts who may have specific knowledge of the vicinity. The NAHC response was
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
25
received on May 18, 2023, and provided a negative result and a list of eight Native American tribes and individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. SWCA sent outreach
letters via email to all Native American contacts on May 30, 2022, with hard copies following by regular mail on June 2, 2023. Examples of tribal outreach letters and details regarding tribal correspondence are presented in Appendix B.
Follow-up telephone calls were made on June 2 and June 8, 2023. Native American outreach performed as part of this review does not constitute formal consultation under AB 52. Chairperson Irene Zwierlein of the Amah Mutsun Band of Mission San Juan Bautista requested that all persons be aware that railroads were historically built on Native burial grounds. Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan requested the CHRIS results, final report, and the evolution and development
of the project area. That information was summarized in an email to Chairperson Sayers. Kanyon Sayers Roods responded via email that the project area overlaps or is near the management boundary of a potentially eligible cultural site and that she would like to consult on the project. The remainder of the telephone calls went unanswered.
Archaeological Resource Survey
SWCA archaeologist Reid Donovan conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area on May 31, 2023. The survey was conducted using pedestrian transects spaced 5 to 15 meters apart where vegetation conditions and safety considerations allowed. Periodic boot scrapes were used to expose soils
when vegetation obscured the ground surface. The entirety of the project area was subject to intensive pedestrian survey.
Archaeological Survey Results
The project area is mostly covered in turf grasses with concrete asphalt, trees, and shrubs (Figures 6-17). The current building appears to have been constructed in the late 1940s to early 1950s and is surrounded by mature vegetation. Palm trees that line Tennis Avenue have a placard stating that they were planted in 1946, and a war memorial is located at the entrance to the pool building. The memorial has two separate
red brick pillars, each with a metal plate on its top. The eastern one, dated November 11, 1947, is a war memorial for the Soldiers of South San Francisco who gave their lives in World War I and World War II (Figures 18 and 19). The second and western pillar is dedicated to the men who gave their lives in the
Korean War and Vietnam War. This pillar was dedicated on November 11, 1979. There is an artist sculpture of a flame to the north of these pillars called “Eternal Flame” installed in 1984 and is made of concrete and tiles.
The railroad tracks on Railroad Avenue that were a part of the Southern Pacific Junction known as CA-SMH-357 (P-41-000497) have been previously removed. The section of Railroad Avenue from memorial park to Spruce Avenue as depicted on the 1980 DPR form map inclusion has been completely removed. Beyond Spruce Avenue the rail bed continues without tracks, paralleling Railroad Avenue.
No archaeological resources, artifacts, or features were observed within the project area.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
26
Figure 6. Overview from northeast corner of project area and eternal flame
sculpture, facing west.
Figure 7. Overview from northeast corner of project area, facing northwest.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
27
Figure 8. Orange Park Pool Building entrance, facing northwest.
Figure 9. Overview of lawn area facing Orange Avenue, facing east.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
28
Figure 10. Overview of lawn area facing Orange Avenue, facing north.
Figure 11. Overview from southern border at southeast corner, facing
north.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
29
Figure 12. Overview of Railroad Avenue, one block east of Orange Avenue,
facing west.
Figure 13. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange
Avenue, facing north.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
30
Figure 14. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange
Avenue, facing south.
Figure 15. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange
Avenue, facing west.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
31
Figure 16. Overview of intersection of Railroad Avenue and Orange
Avenue, facing east.
Figure 17. Row of palm trees along Tennis Avenue planted in 1946, facing
east.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
32
Figure 18. World War I and World War II memorial plaque, plan view.
Figure 19. Korean War and Vietnam War memorial plaque, plan view.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
33
Historical Resources Survey
SWCA architectural historian Sayre Borden, M.A., conducted an intensive survey of the built environment associated with the project area, which is centered around the Orange Pool building at Orange Memorial Park in South San Francisco. The survey was conducted on April 11, 2023, using
digital photographs to primarily document the existing conditions of the Orange Pool building, as well as the surrounding context in Orange Memorial Park; all photographs were taken by SWCA on this date unless noted otherwise. Specific to Orange Pool, the exterior envelope of the building was the primary focus, capturing overall views of the building’s exterior elevations and details of features throughout. The interior of the building was not documented at the time of survey. This was to respect the privacy of the patrons at Orange Pool, many of whom are minors due to the nature of the building as a public, family-oriented recreational facility.
Existing Conditions
ORANGE POOL
Constructed in 1970, Orange Pool is a Mid-Century Modern natatorium (indoor swimming pool) located at Orange Memorial Park in central South San Francisco. The subject building is situated at the northeast corner of the 28-acre L-shaped municipal park and is largely bounded by Orange Avenue to the east, Tennis Drive to the north, and Eucalyptus Avenue to the west.
The building is one to two stories in height and has a rectangular plan that is oriented with the primary façade to the east, which opens onto a landscaped entrance area and an adjoining surface parking lot. The building’s massing is defined by two volumes with staggered heights of one and two stories, both of
which are capped with matching low-pitched gable rooflines with broad overhanging eaves and pronounced heavy timber rafter tails. The one-story volume includes the main entrance vestibule at the primary (east) façade, which wraps around the side (north and south) façades and corresponds with various support spaces, including locker rooms, maintenance facilities, and administrative offices. The two-story volume, which is stepped back from the primary (east) façade and defines the rear (west) half of the building, corresponds with the swimming pool space and its vaulted ceiling (Figure 20). The building is almost exclusively clad in scored concrete masonry unit block (CMU) arranged in a stack bond pattern and the typical fenestration throughout appears to be anodized aluminum, although some metal doors—flush and louvered—are present.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
34
Figure 20. Primary (east) and south façades of Orange Pool, facing
northwest from Orange Memorial Park.
The primary (east) façade is largely symmetrical and defined by the staggered low-pitched gable rooflines of the two volumes (Figure 21). At the forefront of the façade is the primary entrance, which is a full height, slightly recessed anodized aluminum storefront system (Figure 22). The storefront is primarily large, fixed single lites with a pair of automatic sliding doors located at the bottom right (north) of the configuration. The recession is flanked by two wall planes that feature the typical scored CMU veneer, the right (north) side of which features aluminum signage that reads “Orange Pool.” Set directly center in front of the storefront system, in plane with the flanking CMU walls, is a cylindrical concrete pier. This pier has a raw, formed finish and adjoins a gable-shaped beam that matches the roof profile above.
Figure 21. Primary (east) façade of Orange Pool, facing west.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
35
Figure 22. Primary entrance of Orange Pool, facing southwest.
The two side façades, north and south, are mirror images in plan with the one-story entrance and office volume at the front (east) intersecting into the two-story swimming pool volume at the rear (west) (Figure 23). At both façades, the volumes are clad throughout with the typical scored CMU stack bond veneer, and the overhanging eaves at the roofline of both profiles have an extended eave with wood board soffits and exposed rafter tails from the heavy timber beams (Figure 24). The largest variation between the two façades is the fenestration along the two-story swimming pool volume. At the south façade, the
swimming pool volume features several bays with full-height anodized aluminum glazing systems (Figure 25). However, at the north façade, the anodized aluminum windows are located in a clerestory configuration underneath the roofline with the wall plane below characterized by the CMU veneer (Figures 26 and 27). Louvered vents and louvered doors to mechanical spaces are located throughout the north façade as well (Figure 28).
Figure 23. South façade of Orange Pool, facing north.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
36
Figure 24. Detail of the southwest corner of
Orange Pool.
Figure 25. Glazing system at the south façade
of Orange Pool, facing northwest.
Figure 26. North and rear (west) façades, facing southeast.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
37
Figure 27. Fenestration detail at the north
façade of the two-story volume, facing south.
Figure 28. Eastern corner of the north façade,
facing west.
The rear (west) façade of Orange Pool is defined by the two-story height of the swimming pool volume, as well its overall symmetrical composition capped with the low-pitched gable roof with broad
overhanging eaves (Figure 29). At the center of the façade is a full-height glazing system of fixed anodized aluminum lites. These are flanked by the typical CMU cladding, which forms the rest of the façade. The façade is partially screened by plantings, which include a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees, as well as shrubs, and turf that expands into the adjacent park.
Figure 29. Rear (west) façade of Orange Pool, facing east.
SURROUNDING CONTEXT
The area surrounding Orange Pool is largely defined by Orange Memorial Park, a large municipal-owned park space located within the center of South San Francisco. Immediately west of Orange Pool is a playground, as well as a large open space that appears to include space for athletic fields and general
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
38
open play. Further to the southwest is the contemporary-style Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, which was constructed in 2008 (Figure 30).
Figure 30. Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Center (left) with playground
(center) and Orange Pool (right), facing northwest.
Resources within the Project Area and Vicinity
Previously Identified Resources
According to both archaeological and historic resource investigations, there are no previously identified
cultural resources within the project area. The CHRIS records search results did indicate that a former segment of the Southern Pacific Junction was located in the vicinity of the project area, primarily along the alignment of Railroad Avenue. However, this alignment has been completely redeveloped in some
sections, with ties, rails, and other components of the former structure removed in others. The former resource does not retain sufficient integrity to convey significance. No other cultural resources—archaeological or historical—are known to exist within the project area or its vicinity. The Eternal Flame
sculpture is of historic age but given the project will simply be moving it to a new location and it has only been in the current location since the 1980s, we felt there would be no impact and no further study would be required.
Resources Requiring Evaluation
ORANGE POOL
Property History
Orange Pool was constructed at Orange Memorial Park in 1970. Plans for a municipal swimming pool in South San Francisco had been a longstanding affair, stretching back to the original discussion of
recreational development and expansion of the 1920s. However, due to funding, the concept of the municipal swimming pool failed to launch for decades. As the City slowly expanded their public
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
39
recreational programming, residents utilized school athletic facilities, including swimming pools, as an interim solution for the small, yet growing City (South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal 1973a).
Early Swimming Pool Plans
By 1928, residents of South San Francisco were actively petitioning the City to develop new recreational and cultural amenities. The industrial nature of the young city was slow to provide recreational developments, which was becoming increasingly problematic as the community gained more residents. The desire for parks and play spaces was particularly vocalized, especially for school-aged children, although the desire for a municipal swimming pool was consistently a part of the broader conversation (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1928a). The early plans for a potential swimming pool focused on two potential locations: Orange Avenue Park, which was currently under development at the time, and the City’s Civic Center (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1928b). The City began preparing plans to expand the City’s park program and construct a new indoor swimming pool. In the promotion of these plans, the City commissioned San Francisco–based architects Edwards and
Shary to develop initial plans and specifications for the municipal building (Figure 31). The firm explored both the Orange Avenue Park and Civic Center sites as options in the preparation of their plans (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1929).
Figure 31. Sketch of the proposed municipal swimming pool at the Civic
Center location, prepared by architects Edwards & Schary, 1930 (source:
The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930d).
In 1930, the City passed Ordinance No.153, which officially called for a special election related to capital improvement bonds specific to the expansion of Orange Memorial Park and the acquisition of two additional park sites. Additionally, this bond specifically called for the “construction and completion
of a public swimming pool” for which $50,000 was allocated (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930c). The ordinance did not identify a specific site, although potential locations explored included Orange Avenue Park, as well as the Civic Center. In the lead-up to the special election, renderings for the proposed swimming pool building were prepared by San Francisco–based architects Edwards & Schary (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930d). However, despite the promotion of the bond and the various endorsements from local business leaders, not only for pools but the expansion of playgrounds and other recreational facilities under the motto of “take the children off the
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
40
streets,” the bonds for both the swimming pool and the expanded parks ultimately failed to pass (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930e, 1930f).
By 1938, the plans for the construction of a City-owned swimming pool gained renewed momentum as some local politicians sought initial cost estimates for engineering and construction of a natatorium within Orange Avenue Park. However, this coincided with the City exploring the development of a swimming beach, which many councilmembers saw as redundant and advocated for the swimming beach project as the likely cheaper option (The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal 1938a). People throughout the community continued to petition for a swimming pool. Many noted that surrounding communities had similar facilities that were drawing South San Francisco residents, while others made the case that a general lack of recreational facilities was resulting in increased juvenile delinquency (Bellagamba
1938). However, pressure for a municipal swimming pool waned into the 1940s and the involvement of the United States in World War II.
The first dedicated swimming pool in South San Francisco was the facility at South San Francisco High School. Constructed in 1953, the high school swimming pool was operated jointly between the school and the City’s recreation department. In 1954, the City established the first swimming education program, which was administered by the high school football coach, Ray DeJong. DeJong learned to swim while
serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II, and continued to promote the importance of swimming and water safety throughout his career in school athletics (South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal 1973a). The intense, pent-up demand by the general public soon overwhelmed the high school facility, which resulted in the City jointly opening a second school-affiliated swimming pool to the community. These two facilities would continue to serve the residents of South San Francisco as the only formal swimming pools within the City boundaries for the following decades. While the development of the City’s own municipal pool was relatively late compared development of such recreational facilities in other, larger cities, this was not atypical to smaller communities and cities like South San Francisco, which often used school-owned or similar facilities to satisfy demand (The Times 1969a).
New Plans, Design, and Construction (1960–1970)
Despite the fits and starts of planning a City-owned pool and the joint operations with school-owned pools in the 1950s, the concept of a municipal swimming pool had already regained traction by 1960. However, funding for the project remained elusive. Towards the end of 1960, the City introduced an ordinance to create a sales tax that would help fund the expansion of parks and recreation, including
a new swimming pool (The Times 1960b).
In 1963, plans for the new municipal swimming pool were released to the public. This coincided with the announcement that a new swimming pool would be constructed at El Camino High School, and members
of the public raised concerns about the impacts this would have on a future public pool. While the City had allowed general use of swimming pools at public schools in South San Francisco, citizens were concerned that these facilities were too small in scale to meet the demands for comprehensive aquatic programming. The City addressed these fears by assuring the public that a large, perhaps even Olympic-sized, indoor swimming pool was part of their long-range recreation development plan (The San Mateo Post 1963).
One of the early plans floated by the City was to construct a swimming pool underneath the community center that was developed out of the former Magnolia Avenue School. The City conducted an engineering survey into this option, which was ultimately rejected due to a variety of on-site constraints. The City simultaneously investigated other sites and options that included expanded community center facilities (The Times 1968a).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
41
Towards the end of 1968, after years of initial planning, the City selected the San Francisco–based architecture firm of Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow to design the new pool building. At this time, the
vision for the project remained somewhat contentious as many in the City’s Parks and Recreation Department pushed for the size of the pool facility and overall program to be expanded in size; however, City Council and Mayor Frank Bertucelli were firm that the project would not exceed the allocated budget of $400,000. The architects were instructed to proceed with developing plans to construct a facility around a 75-foot-long pool, designed in such a way that future expansion would be feasible (The Times 1968a).
The overall project schedule was short, with four months for design and planning and eight months for construction (The Times 1968b). The project’s quick schedule and low costs were often stressed in
contemporaneous articles about the development of Orange Pool, as the project was part of a larger capital improvements program by the City, which included the development and improvement of two additional park sites and the construction of a new police station (The Times 1969a, 1969b). Details about the architect’s design process are unclear at this time, although it is worth noting that the eventual design for the Orange Pool building has notable similarities to the San Francisco Hall of Flowers (now San Francisco County Fair Building) in Golden Gate Park (Figure 32). Designed by the firm of Appleton
& Wolfard and constructed in 1960, the San Francisco Hall of Flowers building features a central pavilion with pronounced triangular roof with an aluminum glazing system at center with a flanking veneer of scored stack bond concrete (Brown 2011). The architects at Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow were certainly familiar with this building, as they were working on the design for the library addition to the Hall of Flowers during the same period as Orange Pool (Figure 33). While it is not clear if this was the exact source of inspiration, the similarities are notable (Figure 34).1
Figure 32. San Francisco County Fair Building (source: California
Horticultural Society).
1 The architect’s project files for Orange Pool are on file at the Environmental Design Archives at the University of California, Berkeley; however, a visit to the archives to review the files was not feasible at the time of authorship of this report.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
42
Figure 33. San Francisco Hall of Flowers library addition rendering by Yuill-
Thornton, Warner & Levikow, ca.1968 (source: San Francisco Botanical
Garden).
Figure 34. Rendering of the interior of Orange Pool, 1969 (source: The Times 1969a).
On December 6, 1969, a groundbreaking ceremony for the new municipal pool was held at the project site in Orange Memorial Park. The ceremony was attended by several City leaders, including Mayor Frank Bertuceli, various Councilmembers, representatives of the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and members of the design team. The contractor selected for the project was Martinelli Construction Company of San Francisco (The Times 1969c).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
43
Figure 35. Photograph from the Orange Pool groundbreaking ceremony,
December 6, 1969 (source: The Times 1969c).
Dedication and Operations (1970–Present)
Orange Pool was officially dedicated on May 16, 1970 (The Times 1971). However, soon after dedication, multiple cracks were noted in the concrete work throughout the pool and the surrounding decking. A few months after Orange Pool was dedicated, the City commissioned a report to assess the condition of the concrete and the quality of work (The Times 1970).
Following the repairs, aquatic programming at the new pool began with a variety of swim classes catered towards different age groups and needs, as well as swim clubs, first aid training, and similar water safety programs. However, continued maintenance issues at the pool would result in sporadic closures to allow for repair work, which caused frustration to many civic leaders (South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal
1972, 1973b, 1977).
Outside of repairs, equipment replacement, and some tenant improvements, Orange Pool has undergone few changes. It has continued to serve the community of South San Francisco as the sole municipal
swimming pool and has continued to offer a varied aquatics program to the public, swim teams, and other organizations that use the facilities. The continued growth of the aquatics program and community demand has outgrown the capacity of the facility, leading to the plans for a new aquatic center (San
Mateo Daily Journal 2022).
Architecture and Architects
Architecture | Mid-Century Modern
Mid-Century Modern is a blanket term that generally applies to the applications of Modern architecture during the 1950s and 1960s. Based upon the minimalism of the International style that became prominent in years prior, Mid-Century Modernism is centered around the idea of form following functionality, but
was less austere and often less reliant on expansive bands of window systems as a primary design
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
44
element. Mid-Century Modern was often more playful in the types of forms that were used, including broad projecting overhangs, angled roof forms, articulated façades, colored materials, and the integration
of interior and exterior spaces with expansive glazing systems, courtyard spaces, sunshades, and breeze blocks (Brown 2011). In terms of materials, Mid-Century Modernism also expanded beyond the strict manufactured qualities of Internationalism to include a mixture of both industrial and natural materials, the latter of which may include locally occurring materials that lent to a more regional application of the Mid-Century Modern aesthetic. Mid-Century Modernism was utilized for nearly all property types and is often the most common application of Modern architecture during the post-war period in the United States (GE Consultants, Inc. and Mead & Hunt 2017). As such, Mid-Century Modern has become synonymous with post-war architectural design and the decorative arts.
Character-defining features of Mid-Century Modern architecture include:
• Geometric forms and massing as the primary defining element;
• Typically, flat roof profiles with a mixture of shed, butterfly, A-frame, barrel, or other roof forms as accents;
• Cantilevered or overhanging eaves and canopies;
• Canted and large expanses of glazing within articulated façades;
• Mixture of glazing and spandrel panels, often colored;
• Integration of interior and exterior spaces through glazing, interior courtyard spaces, privacy
screens, and covered walkways;
• Geometric privacy screens and sunshades, including breeze block walls and accents;
• Mixture of industrial and natural materials;
• Materials oriented in geometric and repeating fashion as ornamentation; and
• Separate and associated buildings connected through covered breezeways, often supported by simple or “spider leg” posts.
Examples of Mid-Century Modernism in South San Francisco include a variety of commercial, civic, institutional, educational, and religious property types. Some examples of Mid-Century Modern architecture include the El Camino High School Campus (1320 Mission Road), the El Camino High
School Gymnasium (Figure 36), and the South San Francisco Public Library (840 W. Orange Avenue) (Figure 37).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
45
Figure 36. El Camino High School Gymnasium
(source: Wikipedia Commons).
Figure 37. South San Francisco Public Library
at 840 W. Orange Avenue (source: City of
South San Francisco).
Architecture | Bay Region Modernism
Bay Region Modernism is a regional variation of Modern architecture that essentially blends the organic, rustic, and “woodsy” characteristics and forms that emerged out of the Arts and Crafts movement and
First Bay Tradition architectural style and combined them with the functional minimalism of Modernism. Closely tied to the proliferation of European Modernism, Bay Region Modernism began to develop in the San Francisco Bay Area towards the end of the 1930s and continued to evolve through the mid-1960s
(Brown 2011).
The expression of Bay Region Modernism is best captured in what many call the Second Bay Tradition. Developed by architects such as William Wurster and Gardner A. Dailey, the Second Bay Tradition style
utilized a mixture of traditional building materials alongside modern elements, such as expansive glazing systems, and expressed into a series of compositions that were modern in their overall geometrical articulation and lack of ornamentation, but inherently tied to the landscape through their siting, typical use of redwood, and elongated eaves and rafter tails that extend into the landscape. As with most California-based regional styles, the Second Bay Tradition placed an emphasis on integrating the interior and exterior spaces through extensive glazing and the creation of outdoor rooms through patios, terraces, and cantilevered balconies. This had a direct correlation with landscape architecture, notable practitioners of which were essential to the development of Bay Region Modernism (Brown 2011).
By the 1960s, Bay Region Modernism and the Second Bay Tradition were evolving to include more varied forms beyond the strict geometrical forms of a stricter Modern aesthetic. More traditional forms more directly reflective of the Arts and Crafts movement, or even formal and classical elements, such as those expressed in the New Formalist movement, were becoming increasingly common. The most notable development was the creation of the Third Bay Tradition, which is largely credited to the work of Charles Moore and landscape architect Lawrence Halprin. Specifically, their project at Sea Ranch, which
utilized the wood material palette and modular configurations with the iconic shed roofs, came to define this later iteration of the style that continued to retain the quintessential rustic and “woodsy” characteristics, albeit through forms that were still Modern, yet foreshadowing the rise of the Post-Modern movement (Brown 2011).
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
46
Architect | Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow
The architecture firm Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow was originally established by celebrated San Francisco architect Gardner A. Dailey. Born in Minnesota in 1895, Dailey moved to California in 1915 where he began a career in landscape design. After serving in World War I, Dailey returned to California where he eventually studied engineering and began working for the Spring Valley Water Company, which provided water to the City of San Francisco during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. During his tenure at the Spring Valley Water Company, he worked closely with many of the private architects hired by the company, including celebrated San Francisco architects Willis Polk and Arthur Brown Jr. Dailey, and then went on to study engineering and architecture, forming his own private practice in 1926. In the following years, Dailey’s firm remained relatively small but continued to have
an outsized impact on the development of Modern architecture in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is particularly noted for his involvement in developing the Second Bay Tradition style in addition to a variety of high-profile residential, commercial, civic, institutional, and medical commissions (Gordon and Frederick 2002; Brown 2011).
Dailey died in 1967, and the firm was rebranded as Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow after three senior architects at the firm: Alec Yuill-Thornton, Daniel Warner, and John Russel Levikow. The initial years
of the succeeding firm was dedicated to completing projects originally contracted under Dailey, which included the San Francisco Botanical Garden Library in Golden Gate Park (completed 1972), McLaren Park Amphitheater (1970), the Bay Area Regional Transit Headquarters in Oakland (completed 1975), and multiple residential and hospitality projects (Gordon and Frederick 2002). The partnership, however, was short lived, and by the late 1970s, each of the three principals either retired or started individual practices.
Builder | Martinelli Construction Company
The Martinelli Construction Company was founded by Julius Martinelli around the 1920s. Born in Marseilles, France, in 1885, Martinelli immigrated to the United States with his family at the age of 10. By 1910, Martinelli was living in the North Beach neighborhood of San Francisco, working as a carpenter. The exact nature of how Martinelli’s company grew is unclear, although by the 1920s and
1930s, the Martinelli Construction Company had earned several large construction contracts for commercial buildings, schools, and other civic and institutional projects (The San Francisco Examiner 1954; San Francisco Chronicle 1954).
In 1954, Julius passed away, although his company continued to operate in San Francisco. While scholarship about the Martinelli Construction Company is not readily available, a review of available sources revealed that the company continued to grow and be involved in a wide variety of construction
projects in the second half of the century. Particularly notable work included projects at SFO and the Japanese Cultural Trade Center, specifically the construction of the Peace Pagoda (San Francisco Planning Department 2017). It appears that the company eventually declared bankruptcy and dissolved, although the circumstances behind this are unclear at this time.
EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
California Register of Historical Resources
CRITERION 1
The subject building does not appear to be historically significant under Criterion 1. The subject building was built in 1970 and has no direct associations with the founding of South San Francisco as an industrial-focused community in the San Francisco Bay Area, nor with its subsequent industrial,
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
47
commercial, or residential development in the post-war period where the City grew significantly. Similarly, Orange Pool is also not affiliated with the City’s transformation from a primarily industrial
community to an increasingly commercial and residential one.
While Orange Pool is the first official municipal swimming pool in the City of San Francisco, it does not appear to rise to a level of significance for the development of recreation in the community. While the construction of Orange Pool as the City’s first municipal swimming pool, a project that had been in various planning stages in South San Francisco since the 1920s, is notable, it is representative of established trends in the City’s recreational development and does not individually rise to a level of significance. Prior to the construction of the subject building, aquatics programming in South San Francisco and swimming facilities available to the public had existed for decades. This was primarily
achieved through access not only to swimming facilities in nearby communities, but through a joint program administered by the City and South San Francisco Schools in which the public could utilize school swimming pools for open swim, as well as scheduled lessons and other aquatics programming. In fact, the City’s swimming education program was established by 1954, over 15 years before the construction of Orange Pool. The construction of Orange Pool was primarily to provide increased capacity and expand upon the existing recreational services in place. While the building became an
important part of the City’s overall recreational programming after 1970, its construction and subsequent operation is typical to the established trends of recreational development in South San Francisco.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criterion 1.
CRITERION 2
As a civic, public recreational building, the Orange Pool is not associated with any one specific individual, particularly in a way that would rise to a level of significance under this criterion. In terms of its development, the building was often cited by local politicians as an accomplishment they were proud of. However, the associations with these individuals are reflected through a general appropriations and approvals process as members of City Council, and not in a direct capacity that would qualify as significant, as all municipal public projects would have the same associations during this period.
In terms of the building’s operation, Orange Pool was the home to several managers and aquatics directors. While some, such as Ray DeJong, a long-time aquatics director for the City, had interesting personal histories, they do not appear to have made contributions to history at the national, state, or local level that would equate to historical significance.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criterion 2.
CRITERION 3
Constructed in 1970, Orange Pool is primarily composed in a Mid-Century Modern architectural style but
features a variety of transitional architectural elements that reflect a mixture of Bay Region Modernism, and even Late Modernism. Overall, the building’s composition is a transitional design that reflects a variety of architectural movements typical to the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although the building’s architecture has interesting qualities, the end product is a design that lacks a definable architectural vision or cohesive architectural character. Rather, the architecture of Orange Pool reflects a somewhat dislocated series of elements, features, materials, and characteristics that pulled from a variety of architectural styles and were applied in a way that is successful in some compacities and disjointed in others.
Overall, the mixture of quintessential Mid-Century Modern forms—the broad, low-pitched, triangular folded roof plates; broad overhanging eaves with prominent wood beam construction and exposed rafter tails; and expansive window openings—is combined with an almost Brutalist material palette of scored
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
48
concrete masonry unit blocks and raw concrete pillars that reflect a shift towards a more Late Modern aesthetic that had emerged during the mid- to late 1960s and continued throughout the 1970s. Further, the
building retains “woodsy” characteristics that are typical to various Bay Region Modern architectural movements and traditions, which utilize an inherently Arts and Crafts-inspired aesthetic, albeit in a Modern application. For these reasons, the subject building does not significantly exhibit characteristics of one architectural style, but rather represents an amalgamation of several architectural treatments.
The Orange Pool building does not appear to be the significant work of a master architect. The architects responsible for the building, the firm of Yull-Thornton, Warner & Levikow, was a San Francisco–based firm that operated during the late 1960s and 1970s, following the death of the founding architect Gardner A. Dailey. While Dailey is undoubtedly considered a master architect, the work of Yuill-Thornton,
Warner & Levikow is less clear as many of their commissions involved completing projects originally contracted under Dailey. Overall, the subject building appears to be a typical example of the Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow portfolio and does not exhibit any qualities or elements that would elevate it to a level of historical significance. Therefore, the subject building does not appear to represent the work of a master architect.
The Orange Pool building was constructed by the Martinelli Construction Company, which was a notable
San Francisco–based construction company that operated in the San Francisco Bay Area for much of the twentieth century. Although available scholarship and documentation about the Martinelli Construction Company and their catalogue of work is not cohesive, the firm appears to have worked on hundreds of notable properties throughout the region, particularly on commercial, civic, institutional, and medical projects. While their overall catalogue of work is unclear at this time and it is not necessarily clear if they qualify as masters, the Orange Pool does not appear to exhibit any characteristics or qualities that would likely qualify as a significant representation of their work.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criterion 3.
CRITERION 4
Criterion 4 and the potential to yield significant information is primarily utilized for architectural sites or similar resources and is rarely used for historical resources. For elements of the built environment to qualify as significant under this criterion, the property usually is able to provide new information about construction methods or similar contexts. Constructed in 1970, the Orange Pool building is a typical municipal indoor swimming pool, the construction methods, engineering, and architecture of which are
thoroughly understood. As such, the subject building is highly unlikely to yield significant information.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criterion 4.
INTEGRITY
The CRHR requires that, in addition to retaining historical significance, a historical resource must retain sufficient integrity in order to qualify as eligible for listing. As discussed above, Orange Pool does not appear to exhibit historical significance under any of the required CRHR criteria, rendering an assessment of historical integrity as unnecessary.
Overall, the Orange Pool building does not appear to qualify as eligible for listing in the CRHR.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
49
South San Francisco Historical Resource
CRITERION A
The Orange Pool building does not appear to exhibit character, interest, or value as a significant part of the heritage of the City, the state, or the nation. The building is often cited as the first City-owned municipal swimming pool in South San Francisco and has been the center of the City’s aquatics program
since the building’s construction in 1970. However, the building is predated by several other City-led efforts to improve aquatics recreation and education in the community, primarily in the post-war period with the development of the City’s aquatics education program and the opening of school-affiliated pools
throughout the City to the public. This creates a situation where Orange Pool is certainly recognizable in the community, but it does not exhibit character, interest, or value that is significantly associated with the heritage of South San Francisco. Rather, the building is representative of the established and continued development of recreation in South San Francisco. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION B
The Orange Pool building does not appear to be the location of a significant historic event. Research into the property did not uncover any one significant individual event associated with the subject property.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION C
The Orange Pool building is not associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, state, or nation. As demonstrated in the CRHR evaluation above, the Orange Pool building is most closely associated with local politicians who were behind the appropriations
and approval for its construction, which is true of all municipal projects. While the Orange Pool was a celebrated municipal project, there are no direct associations with any one of these individuals that would equate to significance. Regarding aquatics directors and other staff, none appear to demonstrate
a level of significance that would qualify Orange Pool as significant under this criterion. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION D
The Orange Pool building does not exemplify a particular architectural style or way of life. The subject building is primarily composed in a Mid-Century Modern style, which was common and widely used throughout South San Francisco, the San Francisco Bay Area, California, and around the United States during the post-war years. Furthermore, Orange Pool features a more transitional architectural makeup that includes elements from other notable styles, including Bay Region Modernism and Late Modernism. Collectively, the stylistic composition of Orange Pool is an incohesive design that does not reflect any one architectural movement or theory related to a specific way of life. Rather, it pulls from a number of different stylistic moments typical to the late 1960s and early 1970s, which result in an average
Modern-inspired design of that period. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION E
The Orange Pool building does not appear to be the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the City. As a Mid-Century civic building in South San Francisco, Orange Pool is an average example. More notable examples in the City include the South San Francisco Public Library at 840 W. Orange Avenue and the El Camino High School Gymnasium, both of which better exemplify the overall
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
50
application of Mid-Century architecture to a civic recreational building. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION F
The Orange Pool building does not reflect the creation, design, or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly influenced the heritage of the City, the state, or the nation. As described above, the architecture firm of Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow was established by three San Francisco–based architects who inherited the firm of their distinguished predecessor, Gardner A. Dailey. Overall, the work of Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow appears to be typical of this time period in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the specific example in Orange Pool appears to be average within their specific catalogue. The building and its architecture have not significantly influenced the heritage of the City, region, state, or nation. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION G
The Orange Pool building does not embody elements demonstrating an outstanding attention to artist, architectural, and/or engineering design, nor detail, materials, or craftsmanship. As discussed in the evaluations above, the architecture of Orange Pool is primarily a Mid-Century Modern design with
elements reflective of Bay Region Modernism and Later Modernism that collectively create a transitional composition. Overall, the design of the building pulls from various architectural movements that were happening during the late 1960s and early 1970s and executes them in a way that has a pastiche quality. As such, Orange Pool does not demonstrate outstanding design or artistry and, therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION H
The Orange Pool building does not have a significant relationship with any other property such that its preservation is essential to retaining the integrity of a historical resource that requires protecting. While the subject building is located within Orange Memorial Park, South San Francisco’s first municipal park, the area has undergone multiple periods of development and improvements in its near hundred years of development, which in turn does not create a landscape that is indicative of any one specific design or moment in history. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION I
The Orange Pool building does not have a unique location or exhibit singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the City. While Orange Pool is notable as South San Francisco’s only City-owned swimming pool and has been the center of its aquatic programming
since the building’s completion in 1970, this in itself does not equate to historical significance. The setting of the facility in a City-owned park is not unique, and its Mid-Century architectural composition is less significant than that of other civic buildings constructed during this period. It is true that Orange Pool is most likely recognizable to many residents of South San Francisco; however, the location and characteristics of the building do not appear to rise to a level of significant. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION J
The Orange Pool building does not have the potential to yield significant information of archaeological interest. Constructed in 1970, the building is not associated with any likely archaeological context. In addition, its development required extensive grading and excavation that would have disturbed
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
51
previous materials on-site. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
CRITERION K
The Orange Pool building does not have integrity as a natural environment that contributes to the people of the City, the state, or the nation. The subject building is not associated with a natural environment or site such that it would qualify as significant under this criterion. While the property is set within a park setting, this is a designed and vernacular landscape that has been greatly altered and tailored through human intervention. Therefore, Orange Pool does not qualify as a South San Francisco Historical Resource under this criterion.
IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Archaeological
Investigations into potential archaeological resources within the project area found that there was one known resource within the project area, a section of the Southern Pacific Junction known as CA-SMH-357 (P-41-000497). The section of railroad avenue from memorial park to Spruce Avenue as depicted on the 1980 DPR form map inclusion has been completely removed. Beyond Spruce Avenue the rail bed continues without tracks, paralleling Railroad Avenue. No archaeological resources, artifacts, or features were observed within the project area.
The disturbed nature of the site through its grading and various periods of development and improvements as a municipal park suggests that the overall archaeological sensitivity for the project area is low. Despite this low overall sensitivity, it is possible that unknown archaeological resources are extant within the project area, which have the potential to be impacted during the construction of the project, particularly during ground-disturbing activities. However, any project impacts to unknown archaeological resources can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by following the Inadvertent Discovery
procedures noted below.
Historical Resources
Based on investigations of the built environment, there are no historical resources within the project area or its vicinity. A review of existing documentation revealed that a segment of the former Southern Pacific Junction railroad alignment was formerly located within the vicinity of the project area, extending
primarily along present-day Railroad Avenue. However, field investigations noted that the alignment has been largely redeveloped in most areas, with other locations absent former railroad elements, such as ties and rails. Overall, the Southern Pacific Junction railroad alignment does not appear to retain sufficient
historical integrity to qualify as a historical resource.
The Orange Pool building is located within the project area. Constructed in 1970, the building was documented and evaluated for potential eligibility for listing in the CRHR and designation as a South San Francisco Historical Resource. Both assessments found that the Orange Pool building does not demonstrate historical significance such that it would qualify for listing or designation under either program. As such, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as a historical resource.
Therefore, the project, which includes the demolition of the current Orange Pool building and the construction of the new aquatic center, would have no impact on historical resources.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
52
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This cultural resources inventory included a CHRIS NWIC records search, a SLF search through the NAHC, a buried site sensitivity analysis, a review of historic aerials and relevant literature, and an intensive pedestrian survey for archaeological, and historical resources.
Results of the CHRIS records search indicated that there was one previously recorded resource that is located within the project area vicinity, potentially intersecting with the property area. However, the resource, a segment of a former railroad alignment, is no longer extant and therefore does not retain sufficient historical integrity to qualify as a cultural resource for the purposes of CEQA.
SWCA sent letters with a brief project description and associated maps depicting the project to the NAHC on April 26, 2023, requesting a review of its SLF. The NAHC response was received on May 18, 2023, and indicated the results of the SLF search were negative. The NAHC response also provided a list of Native American tribes and individuals who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. SWCA sent outreach letters to all provided Native American contacts on May 30, 2023. Follow-up telephone calls were made on June 2 and June 8, 2023. Chairperson Irene Zwierlein of the Amah Mutsun Band of Mission San Juan Bautista requested that all persons be aware that railroads were historically
built on Native burial grounds. Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan requested the CHRIS results and final report, and the evolution of the site. That information was summarized in an email to Chairperson Sayers. The remainder of the telephone calls went
unanswered.
The intensive archaeological resources pedestrian survey conducted on May 31, 2023, produced negative results. A section of the Southern Pacific Junction known as CA-SMH-357 (P-41-000497) was recorded
in the project area; however, this section of railroad has been completely removed. A review of historic maps and aerial photographs failed to indicate the presence of historic structures or features within the project area, and there is a low potential to encounter intact buried archaeological deposits within the project area. Despite this low archaeological sensitivity, it is possible for unknown archaeological resources to be extant.
The historical resource survey of the project area was conducted on April 11, 2023, which included documenting the built environment, specifically the 1970 Orange Pool building. Subsequent research, contextual developments, and evaluations found that the Orange Pool building does not appear to be eligible for listing in the CRHR or designation as a South San Francisco Historical Resource, meaning that it does not qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA and there are no resources within the project area or its immediate vicinity. Therefore, the project will have no impact on historical resources. As such, SWCA finds that the proposed project will have an overall less-than-significant impact on cultural resources.
Although no cultural resources were noted on the ground surface during this pedestrian survey, the
possibility of encountering cultural resources during excavation remains. If cultural materials are uncovered during project work, the Inadvertent Discovery procedures noted below should be followed.
Inadvertent Discoveries
In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are exposed during disturbance activities, work within 15 meters (50 feet) of the find must stop and an SOI-qualified archaeologist (SWCA Senior Project Manager Christina Alonso [925-399-9220]) must be notified immediately. Work may not resume until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Disturbance activities may continue
in other areas. If the discovery proves significant, additional work such as archaeological testing, data recovery, or consultation with stakeholders may be warranted.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
53
Discovery of Human Remains
The discovery of human remains during the course of the project is a possibility. If human remains are encountered, then the procedures outlined by the NAHC, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98, would be followed. If the monitor determines that a discovery includes human remains:
1. All ground-disturbing work within the immediate vicinity (25 feet) of the find would halt.
2. The archaeologist would contact the Alameda County Coroner:
San Mateo County Coronor 50 Tower Road San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: (650) 312-5562 Web: https://www.smcgov.org/coroner
3. As a courtesy, the County Coroner would also notify the NAHC:
Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 373-3710 Email: nahc@nahc.ca.gov
The County Coroner would have 2 working days to examine the remains after being notified in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the Alameda County Coroner
determines that the remains are Native American and are not subject to the County Coroner’s authority, the County Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC of the discovery.
The NAHC would immediately designate and notify the Native American Most Likely Descendant
(MLD), who will have 48 hours after being granted access to the location of the remains to inspect them and provide recommendations for the treatment of them.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
54
REFERENCES CITED
Belagamba, Gerald
1938 “Why Recreation Center is Needed.” The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal. September 16.
Brown, Mary.
2011 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design: 1935-2970 – Historic Context Statement. Final draft prepared for the City and County of San Francisco Planning Department. January 12.
California Department of Conservation (CDOC)
2022 The Discovery of Gold in California. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Program-MRP/GoldDiscovery.aspx. Accessed May 21, 2022.
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. Available at: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/armr-remediated.pdf.
Accessed May 26, 2023.
California State Lands Commission
2014 Report of the Surveyor-General of the State of California from August 1, 1886, to August 1,
1888. J. D. Young, Supt. State Printing 1888. Available at: https://slc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/Reichert_1886_1888.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2022.
City and County of San Francisco Planning Department (San Francisco Planning Department)
2017 “Draft Landmark Designation Report – Peace Pagoda & Peace Plaza, Peace Plaza, Japantown.” April 3. Available at:
https://commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/2014.1050L.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
2019 “Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report.” In Shape South San Francisco
2040 General Plan. December.
Daly, Pamela
2022 “Historic Context of the City of South San Francisco: History of the City of South San Francisco 1848 to 1972.” Prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division. June.
Editor
2013 “The Eternal Flame at Orange Memorial Park.” May 27. Accessed August 23, 2023. https://everythingsouthcity.com/2013/05/the-eternal-flame-at-orange-memorial-park/.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
55
Garcia, Lola
2002 “Orange Avenue Memorial Park – Once Known as the Willows.” March. Published in The
Industrial City Echoes Newsletter No.145. Historical Society of South San Francisco, South San Francisco, California, March 2019: p. 4.
Gates + Associates
2015 “Parks + Recreation Master Plan, City of South San Francisco, California.” Prepared for the City of South San Francisco. July 22.
GE Consultants, Inc. and Mead & Hunt
2017 Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results. Prepared for the City of Sacramento. September.
Gordon, Danielle, and Betsy Frederick (Gordon and Frederick)
2002 “Inventory of the Gardner A. Dailey Collection, 1923-1979.” Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley. Available at:
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt396nb7zw/entire_text/. Accessed June 3, 2023.
Hodge, Frederick Webb
1910 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Internet Archives. Available at
https://archive.org/details/handbookamindians02hodgrich. Access June 3, 2023
Hylkema, M. G.
2002 Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay
Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J. M. Erlandson and T. L. Jones, pp. 233–262. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 The Costanoans. In Handbook of the Indians of California, pp. 462–473. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, California, Vol. 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer with William G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485–495. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Lightfoot, K. G.
1997 Cultural Construction of Coastal Landscapes: A Middle Holocene Perspective from San Francisco Bay. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by J. M. Erlandson and M. Glassow, pp. 129–141. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
56
Lightfoot, K. G., and E. M. Luby
2002 Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area: Temporal Trends in the Use and
Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J. M. Erlandson and T. L. Jones, pp. 263-281. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Margolin, Malcolm
1978 The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area. Heyday Books, San Francisco.
Milliken, Randall and Laurence H. Shoup, and Beverly R. Ortiz
2009 Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Y and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today.
Milliken, R., R. T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S. Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A. Fredrickson
2007 Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp. 99–124. AltaMira Press, Maryland.
Moratto, M. J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
National Park Service
1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm. Accessed May 2023.
San Francisco Chronicle
1954 “Julius Martinelli.” August 31.
San Mateo Daily Journal
2010 “Orange Memorial Park in South San Francisco.” May 17. San Mateo, California.
2022 “South San Francisco to Get New Aquatic Center at Orange Park.” March 15. San Mateo, California.
South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal
1972 “Register Today for Rec Classes.” January 5.
1973a “SSF High School Football Coach Tackles Swimmers, Too.” August 29.
1973b “Pool Closed.” September 7.
1977 “Orange Pool to Close.” November 9.
Taper, Bernard
1967 “The King of Ranchers.” In American Heritage, Volume 18, No 5. August. Available at: https://www.americanheritage.com/king-ranchers. Accessed June 6, 2023.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
57
The Enterprise
1913 “City Parks on the Peninsula.” April 19. South San Francisco, California.
1921 “Ball Game at New Park Ends in Tie.” May 20. South San Francisco, California.
The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal
1925 “Pete Lind to Barbecue on Orange Ave. Day.” March 26.
1927 “The New Baseball Park.” October 14.
1928a “Three Hundred and Ten.” June 8.
1928b “Hynding Suggests Swimming Pool in Orange Ave. Park; Heads Committee.” October 19.
1929 “Parents Plead for Safety of School Children Walking on Bayshore Road.” December 6.
1930a “City to Vote on $100,000 Park Project, Natatorium, Paving Plan in February.” January 10.
1930b “City Economizes in Producing Own Shrubs for Parks.” January 17.
1930c “Legal Notices – Ordinance No.153.” February 7.
1930d “Business Men Endorse $185,000 Bond Project.” February 14.
1930e “Voters to Decide Fate of City Park Plan.” February 21.
1930f “Bond Issues Meet Smashing Defeat at Polls Tuesday.” February 28.
1934 “City May Block County Garbage Disposal Plan.” January 5.
1937 “Development of Park Supported.” June 11.
1938a “Insurance Fight Ended by Council.” January 21.
1938b “Better than Last Year – Stelling.” March 4.
1938c “Fence Contract Awarded by City.” July 8.
1938d “Archery in Orange Avenue Park to be Permitted.” October 7.
The San Francisco Examiner
1954 “J. Martinelli, Builder, Dies.” August 31.
The San Mateo Post
1963 “S.S.F. Swim Pool Plans Detailed.” March 20. San Mateo, California.
The Times, San Mateo Times, and Daily News Leader (The Times)
1960a “Community Centers Read.” October 18.
1960b “County Adopts New Sales Tax.” November 22. San Mateo, California.
1968a “S.S.F. Survey is Criticized.” March 29. San Mateo, California.
1968b “No Boost in S.S.F. Pool.” December 12. San Mateo, California.
1969a “A Great New Civic Achievement – South San Francisco’s New Indoor Swimming Pool.” July 25. San Mateo, California.
1969b “New Police Station Seen at South S.F.” September 22. San Mateo, California.
1969c “Ground Breaking Ceremonies for the South San Francisco Municipal Swimming Pool.” December 11. San Mateo, California.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
58
1970 “S.S.F. Pool Work Rapped.” November 4. San Mateo, California.
1971 “Dedication.” April 7, 1971. San Mateo, California.
University of California, Santa Barbara Library, Geospatial – Aerial Photography Collection (UCSB)
1941 “Flight C-660, Frame 28.” March 23. Available at: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed June 3, 2023.
1965 “Flight CAS_65_130, Frame 1-52.” May 1. Available at: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed June 3, 2023.
Vellanoweth, René L.
2001 AMS radiocarbon dating and shell bead chronologies: Middle Holocene trade and interaction in western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(9):941–950.
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Replacement Project South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California - FINAL
59
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
CHRIS Records Search Results (Redacted)
APPENDIX B
Native American Coordination
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search
Project: ______________________________________________________________________
County:______________________________________________________________________
USGS Quadrangle Name:_______________________________________________________
Township:__________ Range:__________ Section(s):__________
Company/Firm/Agency:_________________________________________________________
Street Address:________________________________________________________________
City:______________________________________________ Zip:______________________
Phone:_____________________________________________
Fax:_______________________________________________
Email:_____________________________________________
Project Description:
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center
San Mateo
San Francisco South, CA
3S 5W 20, 21
SWCA Environmental Consultants
6355 Riverside Blvd Suite C
Sacramento 95831
(814) 389-8318
brandon.foster@swca.com
SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (OMP AC)
in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange Memorial Park at West
Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new indoor facilities, landscaping
integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's memorial, a multi-purpose room and an
all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 2
May 18, 2023
Brandon Foster
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Via Email to: brandon.foster@swca.com
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public
Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09,
21084.2 and 21084.3, Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Project, San Mateo County
Dear Mr. Foster:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes
that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed
project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or
mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public
agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”)
Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to
consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies
of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public
Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a
public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the
designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated
California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by
means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed
project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the
California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes
that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for
notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation
as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural
resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their
notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been
completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER Wayne Nelson Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov
Page 2 of 2
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the
APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the
Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural
resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded
cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary
objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure
in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission
was negative.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative
response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only
source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having
the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your
assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Cody.Campagne@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
3030 Soda Bay Road
Lakeport, CA, 95453
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com
Costanoan
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel
Tribe
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA, 91766
Phone: (909) 629 - 6081
Fax: (909) 524-8041
rumsen@aol.com
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
ams@indiancanyon.org
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD
Contact
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122
Phone: (408) 673 - 0626
kanyon@kanyonkonsulting.com
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano, Vice
Chairwoman
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 205 - 9714
monicavarellano@gmail.com
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 464 - 2892
cnijmeh@muwekma.org
Costanoan
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA, 94539
Phone: (510) 882 - 0527
Fax: (510) 687-9393
chochenyo@AOL.com
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Patwin
Plains Miwok
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom
Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA, 93906
Phone: (831) 443 - 9702
kwood8934@aol.com
Foothill Yokut
Mono
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Orange Memorial Park
Aquatic Center Project, San Mateo County.
PROJ-2023-
002336
05/18/2023 02:47 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
San Mateo County
5/18/2023
May 30, 2023 Andrew Galvan, Chairperson The Ohlone Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA, 94539 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Dear Chairperson Andrew Galvan,
SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (OMP AC) in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange Memorial Park at West Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new
indoor facilities, landscaping integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's memorial, a multi-purpose room and an all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished.
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of
cultural resources in or near the project area. Additionally, SWCA has conducted a search of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information Center The NAHC SLF search results were received on May 18, 2023, and did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area, however, absence of specific site information in the Sacred Land Files does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. The NAHC recommended that we consult with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project.
The CHRIS records search identified one previously recorded historical site (P-41-000497) within the project area (Table 1). This site was recorded on July, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city
of South San Francisco. No prehistoric or historic sites affiliated with Native American individuals or
groups were identified through either the NAHC SLF search or the CHRIS search. Sincerely,
Christina Alonso Senior Project Manager christina.alonso@swca.com
Attachments: Attachment A – Project maps
May 30, 2023 Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, City of South San
Francisco, San Mateo County, California Dear Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers: SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic
Center (OMP AC) in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange Memorial Park at West Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new indoor facilities, landscaping integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's memorial, a multi-purpose room and an all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished.
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, SWCA contacted the
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project area. Additionally, SWCA has conducted a search of the
California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information Center The NAHC SLF search results were received on May 18, 2023, and did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area, however, absence of specific site information in the Sacred Land Files does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. The NAHC recommended that we consult with you directly regarding your
knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. The CHRIS records search identified one previously recorded historical site (P-41-000497) within the
project area (Table 1). This site was recorded on July, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city
of South San Francisco. No prehistoric or historic sites affiliated with Native American individuals or groups were identified through either the NAHC SLF search or the CHRIS search.
Sincerely,
Christina Alonso Senior Project Manager christina.alonso@swca.com Attachments: Attachment A – Project maps
May 30, 2023 Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546
RE: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California
Dear Chairperson Charlene Nijmeh: SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (OMP AC) in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange
Memorial Park at West Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new
indoor facilities, landscaping integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's memorial, a multi-purpose room and an all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished.
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of
cultural resources in or near the project area. Additionally, SWCA has conducted a search of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information Center
The NAHC SLF search results were received on May 18, 2023, and did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area, however, absence of specific site information in the Sacred Land Files does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. The NAHC recommended that we consult with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. The CHRIS records search identified one previously recorded historical site (P-41-000497) within the project area (Table 1). This site was recorded on July, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city
of South San Francisco. No prehistoric or historic sites affiliated with Native American individuals or groups were identified through either the NAHC SLF search or the CHRIS search.
Sincerely,
Christina Alonso Senior Project Manager christina.alonso@swca.com Attachments: Attachment A – Project maps
May 30, 2023 Kanyon Sayers-Roods
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan 1615 Pearson Court San Jose, CA, 95122
RE: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California
Dear Kanyon Sayers-Roods: SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (OMP AC) in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange
Memorial Park at West Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new
indoor facilities, landscaping integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's memorial, a multi-purpose room and an all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished.
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of
cultural resources in or near the project area. Additionally, SWCA has conducted a search of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information Center
The NAHC SLF search results were received on May 18, 2023, and did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area, however, absence of specific site information in the Sacred Land Files does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources
within the project area. The NAHC recommended that we consult with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. The CHRIS records search identified one previously recorded historical site (P-41-000497) within the project area (Table 1). This site was recorded on July, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city
of South San Francisco. No prehistoric or historic sites affiliated with Native American individuals or groups were identified through either the NAHC SLF search or the CHRIS search.
Sincerely,
Christina Alonso Senior Project Manager christina.alonso@swca.com Attachments:
Attachment A – Project maps
May 30, 2023
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band 1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA, 93906
RE: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Dear Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow:
SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and
Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (OMP AC) in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange Memorial Park at West Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new indoor facilities, landscaping integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's
memorial, a multi-purpose room and an all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF)
search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project area. Additionally, SWCA has conducted a search of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information
Center The NAHC SLF search results were received on May 18, 2023, and did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area, however, absence of specific site information in the Sacred Land Files does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. The NAHC recommended that we consult with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project.
The CHRIS records search identified one previously recorded historical site (P-41-000497) within the project area (Table 1). This site was recorded on July, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a
historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city
of South San Francisco. No prehistoric or historic sites affiliated with Native American individuals or groups were identified through either the NAHC SLF search or the CHRIS search.
Sincerely,
Christina Alonso Senior Project Manager christina.alonso@swca.com Attachments:
Attachment A – Project maps
May 30, 2023 Monica Arellano, Chairwoman
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546
RE: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California
Dear Vice Chairwoman Monica Arellano: SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (OMP AC) in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange
Memorial Park at West Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new
indoor facilities, landscaping integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's memorial, a multi-purpose room and an all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished.
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of
cultural resources in or near the project area. Additionally, SWCA has conducted a search of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information Center
The NAHC SLF search results were received on May 18, 2023, and did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area, however, absence of specific site information in the Sacred Land Files does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. The NAHC recommended that we consult with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. The CHRIS records search identified one previously recorded historical site (P-41-000497) within the project area (Table 1). This site was recorded on July, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city
of South San Francisco. No prehistoric or historic sites affiliated with Native American individuals or groups were identified through either the NAHC SLF search or the CHRIS search.
Sincerely,
Christina Alonso Senior Project Manager christina.alonso@swca.com Attachments: Attachment A – Project maps
May 30, 2023
Tony Cerda, Chairperson Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe 244 E. 1st Street Pomona, CA, 91766
RE: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Dear Chairperson Tony Cerda:
SWCA was retained by the City of South San Francisco (City) and Swinerton Management and
Consulting for environmental support required under CEQA for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center (OMP AC) in the City. The City intends to replace its six-lane Orange Pool, located in Orange Memorial Park at West Orange Avenue and Tennis Avenue, with a new aquatic center with new indoor facilities, landscaping integrated with Orange Memorial Park, relocation of the veteran's
memorial, a multi-purpose room and an all-electric mechanical system. Once the new OMP AC is constructed, the existing Orange Pool facility would also be demolished. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF)
search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project area. Additionally, SWCA has conducted a search of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information
Center The NAHC SLF search results were received on May 18, 2023, and did not identify any Native American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area, however, absence of specific site information in the Sacred Land Files does not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. The NAHC recommended that we consult with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project.
The CHRIS records search identified one previously recorded historical site (P-41-000497) within the project area (Table 1). This site was recorded on July, 2000 by Mike Avina, who documented the site as a
historic-era railroad segment consisting of fifty feet of Southern Pacific’s railroad system within the city
of South San Francisco. No prehistoric or historic sites affiliated with Native American individuals or groups were identified through either the NAHC SLF search or the CHRIS search.
Sincerely, Christina Alonso Senior Project Manager christina.alonso@swca.com
Attachments: Attachment A – Project maps
From: Reid Donovan
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 7:39 PM
To: Christina Alonso
Subject: Fwd: Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center
This came in today
Get Outlook for Android
From:KKLLC Admin <admin@kanyonkonsulting.com>
Sent:Monday, June 19, 2023 4:07:09 PM
To:Reid Donovan <reid.donovan@swca.com>
Subject:Cultural Resources Study for the Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center
miSmin Tuuhis [Good Day]
Kan rakat Kanyon Sayers-Roods. I am writing this on behalf of the Indian Canyon Band of
Costanoan Ohlone People as requested, responding to your letter
As this project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) overlaps or is near the management boundary of
a potentially eligible cultural site, I am interested in consulting and voicing our concerns. With
some instances like this, usually we recommend that a Native American Monitor and an
Archaeologist be present on-site at all times during any/all ground disturbing activities. The
presence of a Native monitor and archaeologist will help the project minimize potential effects
on the cultural site and mitigate inadvertent issues.
Kanyon Konsulting, LLC has numerous Native Monitors available for projects such as this, if
applicable, we recommend a Cultural Sensitivity Training at the beginning of each project. This
service is offered to aid those involved in the project to become more familiar with the
indigenous history of the peoples of this land that is being worked on.
Kanyon Konsulting is a strong proponent of honoring truth in history, when it comes to impacting
Cultural Resources and potential ancestral remains, we need to recognise the history of the
territory we are impacting. We have seen that projects like these tend to come into an area to
consult/mitigate and move on shortly after -barely acknowledging the Cultural Representatives
of the territory they steward and are responsible for. Because of these possibilities, we highly
recommend that you receive a specialized consultation provided by our company as the project
commences, bringing in considerations about the Indigenous peoples and environment of this
territory that you work, have settled upon and benefit from.
As previously stated, our goal is to Honor Truth in History. And as such we want to ensure that
there is an effort from the project organizer to take strategic steps in ways that
#HonorTruthinHistory. This will make all involved aware of the history of the Indigenous
communities whom we acknowledge as the first stewards and land managers of these
territories.
Potential Approaches to Indigenous Cultural Awareness/History:
⭃Signs or messages to the audience or community of the territory being developed. (ex. A
commerable plaque, page on the website, mural, display, or an Educational/Cultural Center with
information about the history/ecology/resources of the land)
⭃Commitment to consultation with the Native Peoples of the territory in regards to presenting
and messaging about the Indigenous history/community of the land (Land Acknowledgement on
website, written material about the space/org/building/business/etc, Cultural display of cultural
resources/botanical knowledge or Culture sharing of Traditional Ecological Knowledge -
Indigenous Science and Technology)⭃Advocation of supporting indigenous lead movements and efforts. (informing one's audience
and/or community about local present Indigenous community)
We look forward to working with you.
Tumsan-ak kannis [Thank You]
Kanyon Sayers-Roods
Consultant / Tribal Monitor [ICMBCO]
Kanyon Konsulting, LLC
APPENDIX C
DPR 523 Forms for the Southern Pacific Junction Alignment
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# P-41-000497 (Update)
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial CA-SMA-357H (Update)
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Southern Pacific Junction
Page 1 of 1
*Recorded by: Christina Alonzo *Date: 6/30/2023 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (9/2013
SWCA carried out a pedestrian survey of the area on May 31, 2023 in connection with the Orange
Memorial Park Aquatic Center proposed project. It was discovered that the railroad tracks on Railroad
Avenue that were a part of the Southern Pacific Junction known as CA-SMH-357 (P-41-000497) have been
removed. The section of Railroad Avenue from memorial park to Spruce Avenue as depicted on the 1980
DPR form map inclusion has been completely removed and the entirety of the alignment has been
redeveloped as a paved residential street (Photograph 1). Beyond Spruce Avenue the alignment
continues, paralleling Railroad Avenue. However, only the right-of-way and portions of the rail bed and
ballast remain. All rail ties, tracks, and other rail elements have been removed and are no longer extant.
As such, this segment of the Southern Pacific Junction does not retain any aspects of integrity such that it
would convey historical significance as a historical resource.
Photograph 1: Overview of intersection of Railroad Ave. and Orange Ave., view facing south
APPENDIX D
DPR 523 Forms for Orange Pool
Page 1 of 30 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Orange Pool
P1. Other Identifier: ____
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
b. USGS 7.5' Quad South San Francisco, CA
Date 2021 T 8N; R 58__ Sec M.D. B.M.
c. Address: 1 W Orange Ave City South San Francisco Zip 94080
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) mE/ mN;
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate)
Located at the northeast corner of Orange Memorial Park
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Constructed in 1970, Orange Pool is a Mid-Century Modern natatorium (indoor swimming pool) located at Orange Memorial
Park in central South San Francisco. The subject building is situated at the northeast corner of the 28-acre L-shaped municipal
park and is largely bounded by Orange Avenue to the east, Tennis Drive to the north, and Eucalyptus Avenue to the west.
(Photograph 1; see Continuation Sheet)
*P3b.Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP13 – Community Center/ social hall
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #)
Photograph 1: Orange Memorial Pool, camera
facing west. April 11, 2020.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
Historic Prehistoric Both
1970, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Orange
Memorial Park Master Plan
*P7. Owner and Address:
City of South San Francisco Division of Parks
and Recreation. 400 Grand Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
Sayre Borden
SWCA Environmental Consulting
6355 Riverside Blvd, Suite C
Sacramento, CA 95831
*P9. Date Recorded: April 11, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other
sources or enter "none.") Cultural Resources
Technical Report for the Orange Memorial Park
Aquatic Center Replacement Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California (July 2023). *Attachments: NONE
Location MapContinuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear
Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and
objects.)
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Orange Pool *NRHP Status Code 6Z
Page 2 of 30
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
B1. Historic Name: Orange Memorial Pool
B2. Common Name: Orange Pool
B3. Original Use: Public Recreation, indoor swimming pool B4. Present Use: Public Recreation, indoor swimming pool
*B5. Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The transmission line entered operation in 1926 for
PG&E, from Vaca Dixon Substation to Contra Costa Substation. Birds Landing Switching Station was constructed in 2005 to
supplement the Shiloh 1 Wind Project and the line was segmented into Birds Landing-Contra Costa.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: ___________
*B8. Related Features: none
B9a. Architect: Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow b. Builder: Martinnelli Construcion Company
*B10. Significance: Theme n/a Area n/a
Period of Significance n/a Property Type n/a Applicable Criteria n/a (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural
This intensive survey and evaluation find that Orange Pool in South San Francisco does not appear to meet the criteria for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) because
of a lack of integrity. The property has been evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources
Code and does not appear to be a historical resource or historic property for the purposes of CEQA or Section 106 consultation,
respectively (see continuation sheet).
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List
attributes and codes) _________
*B12. References: See footnotes
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Daniel Herrick, SWCA
Environmental Consultants
*Date of Evaluation: May 2023
This space reserved for official comments.
See Location Map
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 3 of 30
P3a. Description (Continued):
The building is one to two stories in height and has a rectangular plan that is oriented with the primary
façade to the east, which opens onto a landscaped entrance area and an adjoining surface parking lot. The
building’s massing is defined by two volumes with staggered heights of one and two stories, both of which
are capped with matching low-pitched gable rooflines with broad overhanging eaves and pronounced
heavy timber rafter tails. The one-story volume includes the main entrance vestibule at the primary (east)
façade, which wraps around the side (north and south) façades and corresponds with various support
spaces, including locker rooms, maintenance facilities, and administrative offices. The two-story volume,
which is stepped back from the primary (east) façade and defines the rear (west) half of the building,
corresponds with the swimming pool space and its vaulted ceiling (Photograph 2). The building is almost
exclusively clad in scored concrete masonry unit block (CMU) arranged in a stack bond pattern and the
typical fenestration throughout appears to be anodized aluminum, although some metal doors—flush and
louvered—are present.
Photograph 2. Primary (east) and south façades of Orange Pool, facing
northwest from Orange Memorial Park.
The primary (east) façade is largely symmetrical and defined by the staggered low-pitched gable rooflines
of the two volumes (Photograph 3). At the forefront of the façade is the primary entrance, which is a full
height, slightly recessed anodized aluminum storefront system (Photograph 4). The storefront is primarily
large, fixed single lites with a pair of automatic sliding doors located at the bottom right (north) of the
configuration. The recession is flanked by two wall planes that feature the typical scored CMU veneer, the
right (north) side of which features aluminum signage that reads “Orange Pool.” Set directly center in front
of the storefront system, in plane with the flanking CMU walls, is a cylindrical concrete pier. This pier has a
raw, formed finish and adjoins a gable-shaped beam that matches the roof profile above.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 4 of 30
Photograph 3. Primary (east) façade of Orange Pool, facing west.
Photograph 4. Primary entrance of Orange Pool, facing southwest.
The two side façades, north and south, are mirror images in plan with the one-story entrance and office
volume at the front (east) intersecting into the two-story swimming pool volume at the rear (west)
(Photograph 5). At both façades, the volumes are clad throughout with the typical scored CMU stack bond
veneer, and the overhanging eaves at the roofline of both profiles have an extended eave with wood board
soffits and exposed rafter tails from the heavy timber beams (Photograph 6). The largest variation between
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 5 of 30
the two façades is the fenestration along the two-story swimming pool volume. At the south façade, the
swimming pool volume features several bays with full-height anodized aluminum glazing systems
(Photograph 7 and 8). However, at the north façade, the anodized aluminum windows are located in a
clerestory configuration underneath the roofline with the wall plane below characterized by the CMU
veneer (Photograph 9 and 10). Louvered vents and louvered doors to mechanical spaces are located
throughout the north façade as well (Photograph 11).
Photograph 5. South façade of Orange Pool, facing north.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 6 of 30
Photograph 6. Detail of the southwest corner of
Orange Pool.
Photograph 8. Glazing system at the south
façade of Orange Pool, facing northwest.
Photograph 9. North and rear (west) façades, facing southeast.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 7 of 30
Photograph 10. Fenestration detail at the north
façade of the two-story volume, facing south.
Photograph 11.Eastern corner of the north
façade, facing west.
The rear (west) façade of Orange Pool is defined by the two-story height of the swimming pool volume, as
well its overall symmetrical composition capped with the low-pitched gable roof with broad overhanging
eaves (Photograph 12). At the center of the façade is a full-height glazing system of fixed anodized aluminum
lites. These are flanked by the typical CMU cladding, which forms the rest of the façade. The façade is
partially screened by plantings, which include a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees, as well as
shrubs, and turf that expands into the adjacent park.
Photograph 12. Rear (west) façade of Orange Pool, facing east.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 8 of 30
B10. Significance (Continued):
Historic Context
City of South San Francisco
The area of present-day South San Francisco was originally part of Rancho Buri Buri, a Mexican-era land
grant owned by Jose Antonio Sanchez, who was a prominent soldier stationed at El Presidio Real de San
Francisco. Established by Sanchez in the 1820s and confirmed by the Mexican territorial government in 1833
in recognition of his military service, Rancho Buri Buri was a nearly 15,000-acre rancho located along the
western shore of San Francisco Bay extending from the San Bruno Mountains in the north to present-day
Burlingame in the south. The land was primarily used for raising cattle, although Sanchez cultivated a
variety of crops and constructed an embarcadero to provide shipping access throughout the San Francisco
Bay region (Daly 2022: 6). Through complications with Sanchez’ will, the rancho was split amongst family
members while other portions were sold off to private buyers. Following the annexation of California by the
United States in 1848, many of the Sanchez heirs sold land in order to pay off various debts, taxes, and legal
fees protracted in efforts to legally retain the rights to the former rancho lands. Many who purchased
portions of the former ranch continued to utilize the land for cattle grazing, including Charles Lux and
Herman Miller, two German immigrants who had arrived in San Francisco during the initial waves of the
Gold Rush and established themselves as wholesale butchers. Individually, Lux and Miller both bought
thousands of acres of the former Rancho Buri Buri lands, and eventually formed a business partnership in
1858 that took advantage of the then relatively cheap swaths of overlooked land throughout California,
which in turn resulted in holdings of hundreds of thousands of acres throughout the state for cattle grazing.
The Miller & Lux Company eventually became one of the largest landholding entities within the United
States during this period (Taper 1967).
Of the Rancho Buri Buri lands, Lux had purchased a portion that aligned with the original Sanchez hacienda.
Lux developed a country estate in the vicinity, named Baden after the Alsatian town located on the French-
German border. This generally coincided with three important developments. The first was the creation of
San Mateo County in 1856, which was separated from the consolidated City and County of San Francisco at
the request of rural citizens along the peninsula. The second was the construction of the San Francisco & San
Jose Railroad that connected the two namesake cities by 1864, which provided access to multiple Peninsula
communities. Third was development of San Francisco’s “Butchertown, which was a collection of wholesale
butchers, stockyards, slaughterhouses, meat packing facilities, tanneries, and similar operations that were
required by ordinance to be far removed from the main center of San Francisco due to the horrendous
environmental and atmospheric conditions associated with the industry (Daly 2022).
The Butchertown district had a number of iterations, the first of which was destroyed in a fire in 1864, and
the second was shifted further south and consolidated in the area of present-day Bayview and Hunters
Point. Miller and Lux, both individually and as a partnership, were prominent leaders in the development
and operation of the Butchertown slaughterhouse district, utilizing their financial and political connections,
as well as proximity to the district, to exert control and coordinated with other meat packers and cattle
barons to establish a monopoly over San Francisco’s meat industry (Guerrero 2022). By the late 1880s,
Butchertown had earned an infamous reputation for its squalid conditions. The growth of San Francisco
southwards, coupled with an increased awareness of public health and the development of slaughterhouses
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 9 of 30
and meat packing facilities in Oakland, put the operations of Butchertown under increased scrutiny
(Guerrero 2022). This coincided with the invention of the refrigerated boxcar, which in turn led to
midwestern meatpackers expanding their holdings. In 1888, a year following the death of Charles Lux, the
Armour Packing Company of Omaha—an affiliate of the Union Stock Yards conglomerate—partnered with
Lux & Miller to develop a new meat packing facility in the San Francisco Bay Area. This resulted in the
founding of the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (SSFLIC) in 1891, which served as
the local real estate arm of the Union Stock company and began acquiring thousands around the former Lux
estate of Baden to construct the new stockyards, slaughterhouses, offices, hotels, residences, and other
aspects of a company town to support the new packing district and its workers under the name of the
Western Meat Company. Along with the construction of the new stock yards, slaughterhouses, and meat
packing plants was a Southern Pacific Railroad spur line that reached the new Baden Station. With the new
meat industry facilities located east of Baden Station, the town of Baden was laid out to the north, forming
a residential area and business district north of what is now San Bruno Avenue (Daly 2022).
In addition to the meat industry, other industrial applications soon followed to include paint and solvent
manufacturing, brick and terra cotta making, steel mills, machine shops, and a lumber yard, solidifying the
community’s industrial character. This industrial growth correlated with the growth of the town, which was
renamed South San Francisco, and resulted expanded shipping facilities along the San Francisco Bay, as well
as increased transportation connections to San Francisco through a streetcar line and later the Southern
Pacific Railroad’s Bayshore Cutoff. In the aftermath of the 1906 Earthquake and Fire, the South San Francisco
industries underwent a boom supplying the rebuilding effort, while the town grew exponentially to a
population of approximately 2,000 as more residents relocated from San Francisco. In 1908, the City of South
San Francisco was incorporated, partially in response by the SSFLIC to San Mateo County’s objection to the
development of a copper smelter in the area (Daly 2022). In the decades following incorporation, more
industries were established in South San Francisco, including increased steel works and shipbuilding, which
led the local chamber of commerce to establish South San Francisco as “The Industrial City.” In turn, the
industrial growth drove increased commercial, residential, and civic development in the young city. This
pattern of development was expanded significantly during World War II as the industrial, residential, and
commercial demands of wartime production in the San Francisco Bay Area catalyzed explosive growth in
the City. By 1948, South San Francisco was home to 46 industries with a local population of nearly 16,000
(City of South San Francisco 2019)
In the years following World War II, South San Francisco saw increased commercial and residential
development as new suburban developments were constructed in the remaining vacant land outside the
City’s central commercial and industrial cores. With the growing suburbs to the north and the expanding
presence of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to the south (a major employer for South San
Francisco), the City of South San Francisco was largely built out by the 1970s. While the City had long been
known as a center of heavy industry, this had begun to change in the post-war years, partially through the
increasing environmental awareness around the San Francisco Bay, as well as a shift to lighter services,
including transportation and aviation, as well as new emerging industries, such as pharmaceuticals,
technology, and biotechnology. Through the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty first, the heavy
industrial character of South San Francisco was redeveloped to reflect distribution centers, commercial office
parks, corporate campuses, and new hotels that catered to nearby SFO (City of South San Francisco 2019).
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 10 of 30
Parks and Recreation in South San Francisco
The initial development of South San Francisco was largely in the model of the industrial company town.
The SSFLIC owned most of the land in the area and focused primarily on the development of industry,
followed by the central commercial district and residential neighborhoods. At this time, civic development
was primarily focused on infrastructure—water, electricity, sewage, paved roads, etc.—as well as
administrative necessities, such as schools and a new City Hall. As the twentieth century progressed, the
fledgling city grew from its initial company town roots and residents of South San Francisco began lobbying
for new recreational facilities. This coincided with the rise of the parks and conservation movements, which
strongly advocated for publicly accessible parklands in both urban areas and perceived natural
wildernesses, as well as the lead-up to the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco,
which put pressure on the entirety of the San Francisco Bay Area to undertake projects that would show
well on the world stage (The Enterprise 1913). Despite this pressure, the realization of public recreational
facilities in South San Francisco would be slow to materialize.
The first recreational development in South San Francisco was the 1921 construction of a new baseball field
and grandstand at South San Francisco High School. Although relatively small in scale and primarily
serving as a spectator facility, the initial baseball field solidified the sport as an important pastime in the
community (The Enterprise 1921; San Mateo Daily Journal 2010). Under increasing pressure, the SSFLIC
granted approximately 20 acres to the City for the development of its first public park, which would
ultimately become present-day Orange Memorial Park. The conditions of the deal outlined that the SSFLIC
would construct the streets that would surround the park, while the City would be responsible for paving
and upkeep (San Mateo Daily Journal 2010). The park, then referred to as Orange Avenue Park, was slow to
develop. Both the SSFLIC and City put in limited resources to clearing and grading the land, which
continued to drag out through the 1920s. However, by the 1930s, renewed pressure led to the increased
development of Orange Avenue Park, as well as its subsequent expansion, as South San Francisco’s main
urban park.
Efforts to develop other parks were undertaken, most notably in 1930 with a special election which called
for the City to issue bonds for recreation-specific capital improvement projects, which included the
construction of two new City parks, as well as a municipal swimming pool, in addition to continued
improvements to Orange Avenue Park. Proponents for the initiative cited the lack of recreational
opportunities for children and the issues related to increased delinquency. Despite the overt support from
the local Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, voters ultimately rejected the initiative (The
Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930a, 1930f). Many continued to push for increased recreation
throughout the 1930s, although the political pressure for the City to expand recreation in South San
Francisco subsided as the United States entered World War II.
In the post-war years, the City began re-examining their recreational facilities as the community grew
industrially, commercially, and residentially. As with other communities in California and the broader
United States, the development of large suburban residential neighborhoods in South San Francisco would
often include parks as part of the planning process, often with a baseball diamond, open play area, and
playgrounds. Other efforts were more ad hoc, such as with the development of the City’s first community
center, which involved the reuse of the former Magnolia Avenue School (The Times 1960a). However, at the
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 11 of 30
same time, the City recognized the increased recreational needs that came with this expanded growth, as
well as the importance of recreation as a promotional tool for luring both businesses and residents. The City
began to develop recreational plans to address short-term and long-term goals, often in consultation with
the public. Out of these recreational plans, the City prioritized a series of parks and recreation projects
throughout South San Francisco (The Times, 1960b). This included a number of new parks throughout San
Francisco ranging from small neighborhood parks with playgrounds to larger athletic fields, open spaces,
and community centers. This trend of recreational expansion would continue throughout the remainder of
the century to include networks of hiking and biking trails, monuments, a marina, dog parks, and a variety
of greenbelts and pocket parks located throughout the community. Today, South San Francisco has over 250
acres of dedicated parkland with a variety of landscapes, facilities, and uses (Gates + Associates 2015).
Orange Memorial Park
In 1925, after increased pressure to develop recreational facilities in the community, the SSFLIC granted over
20 acres of land west of the civic center of South San Francisco for the City’s development and use as a public
park. Located on lands straddling Coloma Creek, the land was marshland and not ideal for development as
it was prone to seasonal flooding with thick vegetation. The transaction included the stipulation that SSFLIC
build streets alongside both sides of the park, although it appears that the actual park development was left
open ended (San Mateo Daily Journal 2010). Efforts to drain and grade the land and remove vegetation were
slow, and additional grading and clearing work was required for new roadways to connect the park to South
San Francisco. Many projects during this time used volunteer community labor; however, slow progress
spurred the City into action (The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal 1925). Following land
reclamation, the first improvement at Orange Avenue Park was the construction of a baseball diamond in
1927 to the then-professional league standards(The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal 1927).
In 1928, the City participated in a complicated land swap where it provided land to the Marchetti Motor
company in exchange for an additional eight acres of land at Orange Avenue Park (The Enterprise and South
San Francisco Journal 1934). The following year, the City began planning improvements to the park, bundled
with developments of two additional park sites as part of a capital improvements program. This was in
response to vocal members of the community, which continued to advocate for increased recreation and
playground facilities to provide a variety of options, particularly for South San Francisco youth (The
Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930d).
In the lead-up to the special election for the capital improvements bond, which included a measure for park
improvements and a new municipal swimming pool, the City released a conceptual plan demonstrating
what could be done at Orange Avenue Park. Designed by Homer Pack, an engineer and designer for the
San Francisco Playground Commission, the layout included an immense expansion of the recreational
facilities (Figure 1). To supplement the existing baseball diamond, a new baseball diamond adjoining an
open meadow for general play would be constructed to the northeast, along with a field house and a series
of play equipment. This would also coincide with a collection of court facilities for basketball, tennis,
handball, bocce, and volleyball, among others. At the northernmost area of the park lands would be a
football field, as well as Palonni—a traditional Italian game similar to tennis. At the northwest corner of the
park would be an expansive meadow for open play, which included a robust peripheral planting scheme to
create defined picnic spaces. This area of the park would also include a bandstand facing the meadow, along
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 12 of 30
with barbecue pits and a wading pool. Other facilities referenced in the plan included comfort stations,
showers and changing rooms, as well as curvilinear walking paths and dedicated surface parking, all of
which would be defined alongside a robust planting scheme (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal
1930e). However, the grand plans for Orange Avenue Park and expansion of other recreational facilities
were ultimately defeated by voters. The most common reason associated with the defeat was poor voter
turnout, although the economic challenges of the period may have been an important factor (The Enterprise
and South San Francisco Journal 1930f). However, the City introduced some new uses to the park land,
specifically converting the westernmost corner of the park into a plant nursery. These plants grown would
be used in City beautification projects, while also reducing procurement costs (The Enterprise and South San
Francisco Journal, 1930b).
Figure 1. Conceptual site plan of Orange Avenue Park showing proposed developments associated
with the 1930 special election to issue bonds for parks and recreation development in South San
Francisco (source: The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930e).
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 13 of 30
The late 1930s saw a flurry of activity at Orange Avenue Park as advocates continued to call for improvement
to the park as the community’s primary recreational venue. Improvements included the construction of a
new baseball fence in 1936, a dedicated picnic areas and a playground in 1937, a second baseball diamond
at the southern corner of the property, new tennis courts at the northeast corner, and the development of an
archery range, all in 1938 (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1937, 1938b, 1938c, 1938d). However,
despite theseof improvements, by 1941 much of the expansive parkland remained largely open and
undeveloped (Figure 2) (University of California, Santa Barbara Library [UCSB] 1941). Subsequent changes
to Orange Avenue Park occurred in the years following World War II, including the acquisition two acres
of land and the change of the park’s name to Orange Memorial Park as a dedication to the living memory
of the local service members of both World War I and World War II (Garcia 2002).
During the 1950s, the City developed a long-range recreation master development plan, which identified
several park and recreational opportunities, including expanded community center facilities, athletic fields,
and a municipal swimming pool. While many of these amenities were slated for Orange Memorial Park,
many of the City’s efforts were drawn towards developing parks and recreational facilities in the growing
residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the increased demand for new schools resulted in the construction
of other recreational facilities, although these school-owned gymnasiums, athletic centers, playgrounds, and
swimming pools were often available for public use in coordination between the City and the school district.
However, by 1965, Orange Memorial Park had undergone some notable improvements, including the
construction of several new recreational baseball fields, the installation of several picnic sites and a larger
group picnic shelter, and what appears to be the construction of a new comfort station and a wading pool
(Figure 3) (UCSB 1965). In the late 1960s, substantial changes included the construction a new corporation
yard at the northern corner of the park in 1967, which house the City’s parks and recreation maintenance
and operations, and the construction of the Orange Pool building in 1970.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 14 of 30
Figure 2. 1941 aerial photograph of Orange
Memorial Park (source: UCSB Aerial
Photograph Library 1941).
Figure 3. 1965 aerial photograph of Orange
Memorial Park (source: UCSB Aerial
Photograph Library 1965).
The park continued to evolve in subsequent decades with the installation of the “eternal flame” public art
installation in 1984, the addition of more bocce courts in 1990, the construction and renovation of the
playgrounds in 1998, and the construction of new basketball courts and soccer field. In the twenty-first
century, more drastic changes to the park included the reconfiguration of the walking paths, the installation
of a new sculpture garden at the southwest corner in 2003, the construction of the Joseph A. Fernekes
Recreation Building in 2008, and the construction of a skate park in 2009 (San Mateo Daily Journal 2010).
Today Orange Memorial Park encompasses 28 acres and includes a variety of recreational spaces and
facilities that reflect the current recreational needs and tastes of South San Francisco, while also echoing the
nearly 100 years of the park as a central recreational fixture in the community.
Property History
Orange Pool was constructed at Orange Memorial Park in 1970. Plans for a municipal swimming pool
in South San Francisco had been a longstanding affair, stretching back to the original discussion of
recreational development and expansion of the 1920s. However, due to funding, the concept of the
municipal swimming pool failed to launch for decades. As the City slowly expanded their public
recreational programming, residents utilized school athletic facilities, including swimming pools,
as an interim solution for the small, yet growing City (South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal 1973a).
Early Swimming Pool Plans
By 1928, residents of South San Francisco were actively petitioning the City to develop new recreational and
cultural amenities. The industrial nature of the young city was slow to provide recreational developments,
which was becoming increasingly problematic as the community gained more residents. The desire for
parks and play spaces was particularly vocalized, especially for school-aged children, although the desire
for a municipal swimming pool was consistently a part of the broader conversation (The Enterprise and South
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 15 of 30
San Francisco Journal 1928a). The early plans for a potential swimming pool focused on two potential
locations: Orange Avenue Park, which was currently under development at the time, and the City’s Civic
Center (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1928b). The City began preparing plans to expand the
City’s park program and construct a new indoor swimming pool. In the promotion of these plans, the City
commissioned San Francisco–based architects Edwards and Shary to develop initial plans and specifications
for the municipal building (Figure 4). The firm explored both the Orange Avenue Park and Civic Center
sites as options in the preparation of their plans (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1929).
Figure 4. Sketch of the proposed municipal swimming pool at the Civic Center
location, prepared by architects Edwards & Schary, 1930 (source: The Enterprise
and South San Francisco Journal 1930d).
In 1930, the City passed Ordinance No.153, which officially called for a special election related to capital
improvement bonds specific to the expansion of Orange Memorial Park and the acquisition of two
additional park sites. Additionally, this bond specifically called for the “construction and completion
of a public swimming pool” for which $50,000 was allocated (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal
1930c). The ordinance did not identify a specific site, although potential locations explored included Orange
Avenue Park, as well as the Civic Center. In the lead-up to the special election, renderings for the proposed
swimming pool building were prepared by San Francisco–based architects Edwards & Schary (The Enterprise
and South San Francisco Journal 1930d). However, despite the promotion of the bond and the various
endorsements from local business leaders, not only for pools but the expansion of playgrounds and other
recreational facilities under the motto of “take the children off the streets,” the bonds for both the swimming
pool and the expanded parks ultimately failed to pass (The Enterprise and South San Francisco Journal 1930e,
1930f).
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 16 of 30
By 1938, the plans for the construction of a City-owned swimming pool gained renewed momentum as some
local politicians sought initial cost estimates for engineering and construction of a natatorium within Orange
Avenue Park. However, this coincided with the City exploring the development of a swimming beach,
which many councilmembers saw as redundant and advocated for the swimming beach project as the likely
cheaper option (The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal 1938a). People throughout the community
continued to petition for a swimming pool. Many noted that surrounding communities had similar facilities
that were drawing South San Francisco residents, while others made the case that a general lack of
recreational facilities was resulting in increased juvenile delinquency (Bellagamba 1938). However, pressure
for a municipal swimming pool waned into the 1940s and the involvement of the United States in World
War II.
The first dedicated swimming pool in South San Francisco was the facility at South San Francisco High
School. Constructed in 1953, the high school swimming pool was operated jointly between the school and
the City’s recreation department. In 1954, the City established the first swimming education program, which
was administered by the high school football coach, Ray DeJong. DeJong learned to swim while serving in
the U.S. Navy during World War II, and continued to promote the importance of swimming and water
safety throughout his career in school athletics (South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal 1973a). The intense,
pent-up demand by the general public soon overwhelmed the high school facility, which resulted in the City
jointly opening a second school-affiliated swimming pool to the community. These two facilities would
continue to serve the residents of South San Francisco as the only formal swimming pools within the City
boundaries for the following decades. While the development of the City’s own municipal pool was
relatively late compared development of such recreational facilities in other, larger cities, this was not
atypical to smaller communities and cities like South San Francisco, which often used school-owned or
similar facilities to satisfy demand (The Times 1969a).
New Plans, Design, and Construction (1960–1970)
Despite the fits and starts of planning a City-owned pool and the joint operations with school-owned pools
in the 1950s, the concept of a municipal swimming pool had already regained traction by 1960. However,
funding for the project remained elusive. Towards the end of 1960, the City introduced an ordinance to
create a sales tax that would help fund the expansion of parks and recreation, including a new swimming
pool (The Times 1960b).
In 1963, plans for the new municipal swimming pool were released to the public. This coincided with the
announcement that a new swimming pool would be constructed at El Camino High School, and members
of the public raised concerns about the impacts this would have on a future public pool. While the City had
allowed general use of swimming pools at public schools in South San Francisco, citizens were concerned
that these facilities were too small in scale to meet the demands for comprehensive aquatic programming.
The City addressed these fears by assuring the public that a large, perhaps even Olympic-sized, indoor
swimming pool was part of their long-range recreation development plan (The San Mateo Post 1963).
One of the early plans floated by the City was to construct a swimming pool underneath the community
center that was developed out of the former Magnolia Avenue School. The City conducted an engineering
survey into this option, which was ultimately rejected due to a variety of on-site constraints. The City
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 17 of 30
simultaneously investigated other sites and options that included expanded community center facilities (The
Times 1968a).
Towards the end of 1968, after years of initial planning, the City selected the San Francisco–based
architecture firm of Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow to design the new pool building. At this time, the
vision for the project remained somewhat contentious as many in the City’s Parks and Recreation
Department pushed for the size of the pool facility and overall program to be expanded in size; however,
City Council and Mayor Frank Bertucelli were firm that the project would not exceed the allocated budget
of $400,000. The architects were instructed to proceed with developing plans to construct a facility around
a 75-foot-long pool, designed in such a way that future expansion would be feasible (The Times 1968a).
The overall project schedule was short, with four months for design and planning and eight months for
construction (The Times 1968b). The project’s quick schedule and low costs were often stressed in
contemporaneous articles about the development of Orange Pool, as the project was part of a larger capital
improvements program by the City, which included the development and improvement of two additional
park sites and the construction of a new police station (The Times 1969a, 1969b). Details about the architect’s
design process are unclear at this time, although it is worth noting that the eventual design for the Orange
Pool building has notable similarities to the San Francisco Hall of Flowers (now San Francisco County Fair
Building) in Golden Gate Park (Figure 5). Designed by the firm of Appleton & Wolfard and constructed in
1960, the San Francisco Hall of Flowers building features a central pavilion with pronounced triangular roof
with an aluminum glazing system at center with a flanking veneer of scored stack bond concrete (Brown
2011). The architects at Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow were certainly familiar with this building, as
they were working on the design for the library addition to the Hall of Flowers during the same period as
Orange Pool (Figure 6). While it is not clear if this was the exact source of inspiration, the similarities are
notable (Figure 7).1
1 The architect’s project files for Orange Pool are on file at the Environmental Design Archives at the University of California, Berkeley; however, a visit to the archives to review the files was not feasible at the time of authorship of this report.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 18 of 30
Figure 5. San Francisco County Fair Building (source: California Horticultural
Society).
Figure 6. San Francisco Hall of Flowers library addition rendering by Yuill-
Thornton, Warner & Levikow, ca.1968 (source: San Francisco Botanical Garden).
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 19 of 30
Figure 7. Rendering of the interior of Orange Pool, 1969 (source: The Times
1969a).
On December 6, 1969, a groundbreaking ceremony for the new municipal pool was held at the project site
in Orange Memorial Park. The ceremony was attended by several City leaders, including Mayor Frank
Bertuceli, various Councilmembers, representatives of the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and
members of the design team. The contractor selected for the project was Martinelli Construction Company
of San Francisco (The Times 1969c).
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 20 of 30
Figure 8. Photograph from the Orange Pool groundbreaking ceremony,
December 6, 1969 (source: The Times 1969c).
Dedication and Operations (1970–Present)
Orange Pool was officially dedicated on May 16, 1970 (The Times 1971). However, soon after dedication,
multiple cracks were noted in the concrete work throughout the pool and the surrounding decking. A few
months after Orange Pool was dedicated, the City commissioned a report to assess the condition of the
concrete and the quality of work (The Times 1970).
Following the repairs, aquatic programming at the new pool began with a variety of swim classes catered
towards different age groups and needs, as well as swim clubs, first aid training, and similar water safety
programs. However, continued maintenance issues at the pool would result in sporadic closures to allow
for repair work, which caused frustration to many civic leaders (South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal 1972,
1973b, 1977).
Outside of repairs, equipment replacement, and some tenant improvements, Orange Pool has undergone
few changes. It has continued to serve the community of South San Francisco as the sole municipal
swimming pool and has continued to offer a varied aquatics program to the public, swim teams, and other
organizations that use the facilities. The continued growth of the aquatics program and community demand
has outgrown the capacity of the facility, leading to the plans for a new aquatic center (San Mateo Daily
Journal 2022).
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 21 of 30
Architecture & Architects
Architecture | Mid-Century Modern
Mid-Century Modern is a blanket term that generally applies to the applications of Modern architecture
during the 1950s and 1960s. Based upon the minimalism of the International style that became prominent in
years prior, Mid-Century Modernism is centered around the idea of form following functionality, but was
less austere and often less reliant on expansive bands of window systems as a primary design element. Mid-
Century Modern was often more playful in the types of forms that were used, including broad projecting
overhangs, angled roof forms, articulated façades, colored materials, and the integration of interior and
exterior spaces with expansive glazing systems, courtyard spaces, sunshades, and breeze blocks (Brown
2011). In terms of materials, Mid-Century Modernism also expanded beyond the strict manufactured
qualities of Internationalism to include a mixture of both industrial and natural materials, the latter of which
may include locally occurring materials that lent to a more regional application of the Mid-Century Modern
aesthetic. Mid-Century Modernism was utilized for nearly all property types and is often the most common
application of Modern architecture during the post-war period in the United States (GE Consultants, Inc.
and Mead & Hunt 2017)80. As such, Mid-Century Modern has become synonymous with post-war
architectural design and the decorative arts.
Character-defining features of Mid-Century Modern architecture include:
• Geometric forms and massing as the primary defining element;
• Typically, flat roof profiles with a mixture of shed, butterfly, A-frame, barrel, or other roof forms
as accents;
• Cantilevered or overhanging eaves and canopies;
• Canted and large expanses of glazing within articulated façades;
• Mixture of glazing and spandrel panels, often colored;
• Integration of interior and exterior spaces through glazing, interior courtyard spaces, privacy
screens, and covered walkways;
• Geometric privacy screens and sunshades, including breeze block walls and accents;
• Mixture of industrial and natural materials;
• Materials oriented in geometric and repeating fashion as ornamentation; and
• Separate and associated buildings connected through covered breezeways, often supported
by simple or “spider leg” posts.
Examples of Mid-Century Modernism in South San Francisco include a variety of commercial, civic,
institutional, educational, and religious property types. Some examples of Mid-Century Modern
architecture include the El Camino High School Campus (1320 Mission Road), the El Camino High School
Gymnasium (Figure 9), and the South San Francisco Public Library (840 W. Orange Avenue) (Figure 10).
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 22 of 30
Figure 9. El Camino High School Gymnasium
(source: Wikipedia Commons).
Figure 10. South San Francisco Public Library at
840 W. Orange Avenue (source: City of South
San Francisco).
Architecture | Bay Region Modernism
Bay Region Modernism is a regional variation of Modern architecture that essentially blends the organic,
rustic, and “woodsy” characteristics and forms that emerged out of the Arts and Crafts movement and First
Bay Tradition architectural style and combined them with the functional minimalism of Modernism. Closely
tied to the proliferation of European Modernism, Bay Region Modernism began to develop in the San
Francisco Bay Area towards the end of the 1930s and continued to evolve through the mid-1960s (Brown
2011).
The expression of Bay Region Modernism is best captured in what many call the Second Bay Tradition.
Developed by architects such as William Wurster and Gardner A. Dailey, the Second Bay Tradition style
utilized a mixture of traditional building materials alongside modern elements, such as expansive glazing
systems, and expressed into a series of compositions that were modern in their overall geometrical
articulation and lack of ornamentation, but inherently tied to the landscape through their siting, typical use
of redwood, and elongated eaves and rafter tails that extend into the landscape. As with most California-
based regional styles, the Second Bay Tradition placed an emphasis on integrating the interior and exterior
spaces through extensive glazing and the creation of outdoor rooms through patios, terraces, and
cantilevered balconies. This had a direct correlation with landscape architecture, notable practitioners of
which were essential to the development of Bay Region Modernism (Brown 2011).
By the 1960s, Bay Region Modernism and the Second Bay Tradition were evolving to include more varied
forms beyond the strict geometrical forms of a stricter Modern aesthetic. More traditional forms more
directly reflective of the Arts and Crafts movement, or even formal and classical elements, such as those
expressed in the New Formalist movement, were becoming increasingly common. The most notable
development was the creation of the Third Bay Tradition, which is largely credited to the work of Charles
Moore and landscape architect Lawrence Halprin. Specifically, their project at Sea Ranch, which utilized the
wood material palette and modular configurations with the iconic shed roofs, came to define this later
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 23 of 30
iteration of the style that continued to retain the quintessential rustic and “woodsy” characteristics, albeit
through forms that were still Modern, yet foreshadowing the rise of the Post-Modern movement (Brown
2011).
Architect | Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow
The architecture firm Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow was originally established by celebrated San
Francisco architect Gardner A. Dailey. Born in Minnesota in 1895, Dailey moved to California in 1915 where
he began a career in landscape design. After serving in World War I, Dailey returned to California where he
eventually studied engineering and began working for the Spring Valley Water Company, which provided
water to the City of San Francisco during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. During his tenure
at the Spring Valley Water Company, he worked closely with many of the private architects hired by the
company, including celebrated San Francisco architects Willis Polk and Arthur Brown Jr. Dailey, and then
went on to study engineering and architecture, forming his own private practice in 1926. In the following
years, Dailey’s firm remained relatively small but continued to have an outsized impact on the development
of Modern architecture in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is particularly noted for his involvement in
developing the Second Bay Tradition style in addition to a variety of high-profile residential, commercial,
civic, institutional, and medical commissions (Gordon and Frederick 2002; Brown 2011).
Dailey died in 1967, and the firm was rebranded as Yuill-Thornton, Warner & Levikow after three senior
architects at the firm: Alec Yuill-Thornton, Daniel Warner, and John Russel Levikow. The initial years of the
succeeding firm was dedicated to completing projects originally contracted under Dailey, which included
the San Francisco Botanical Garden Library in Golden Gate Park (completed 1972), McLaren Park
Amphitheater (1970), the Bay Area Regional Transit Headquarters in Oakland (completed 1975), and
multiple residential and hospitality projects (Gordon and Frederick 2002). The partnership, however, was
short lived, and by the late 1970s, each of the three principals either retired or started individual practices.
Builder | Martinelli Construction Company
The Martinelli Construction Company was founded by Julius Martinelli around the 1920s. Born in
Marseilles, France, in 1885, Martinelli immigrated to the United States with his family at the age of 10. By
1910, Martinelli was living in the North Beach neighborhood of San Francisco, working as a carpenter. The
exact nature of how Martinelli’s company grew is unclear, although by the 1920s and 1930s, the Martinelli
Construction Company had earned several large construction contracts for commercial buildings, schools,
and other civic and institutional projects (The San Francisco Examiner 1954; San Francisco Chronicle 1954).
In 1954, Julius passed away, although his company continued to operate in San Francisco. While scholarship
about the Martinelli Construction Company is not readily available, a review of available sources revealed
that the company continued to grow and be involved in a wide variety of construction projects in the second
half of the century. Particularly notable work included projects at SFO and the Japanese Cultural Trade
Center, specifically the construction of the Peace Pagoda (San Francisco Planning Department 2017). It
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 24 of 30
appears that the company eventually declared bankruptcy and dissolved, although the circumstances
behind this are unclear at this time.
Evaluation
Criteria A/1
The subject building does not appear to be historically significant under Criteria A or 1. The subject building
was built in 1970 and has no direct associations with the founding of South San Francisco as an industrial-
focused community in the San Francisco Bay Area, nor with its subsequent industrial, commercial, or
residential development in the post-war period where the City grew significantly. Similarly, Orange Pool is
also not affiliated with the City’s transformation from a primarily industrial community to an increasingly
commercial and residential one.
While Orange Pool is the first official municipal swimming pool in the City of San Francisco, it does not
appear to rise to a level of significance for the development of recreation in the community. While the
construction of Orange Pool as the City’s first municipal swimming pool, a project that had been in various
planning stages in South San Francisco since the 1920s, is notable, it is representative of established trends
in the City’s recreational development and does not individually rise to a level of significance. Prior to the
construction of the subject building, aquatics programming in South San Francisco and swimming facilities
available to the public had existed for decades. This was primarily achieved through access not only to
swimming facilities in nearby communities, but through a joint program administered by the City and South
San Francisco Schools in which the public could utilize school swimming pools for open swim, as well as
scheduled lessons and other aquatics programming. In fact, the City’s swimming education program was
established by 1954, over 15 years before the construction of Orange Pool. The construction of Orange Pool
was primarily to provide increased capacity and expand upon the existing recreational services in place.
While the building became an important part of the City’s overall recreational programming after 1970, its
construction and subsequent operation is typical to the established trends of recreational development in
South San Francisco.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criteria A or 1.
Criteria B/2
As a civic, public recreational building, the Orange Pool is not associated with any one specific individual,
particularly in a way that would rise to a level of significance under this criterion. In terms of its
development, the building was often cited by local politicians as an accomplishment they were proud of.
However, the associations with these individuals are reflected through a general appropriations and
approvals process as members of City Council, and not in a direct capacity that would qualify as significant,
as all municipal public projects would have the same associations during this period.
In terms of the building’s operation, Orange Pool was the home to several managers and aquatics directors.
While some, such as Ray DeJong, a long-time aquatics director for the City, had interesting personal
histories, they do not appear to have made contributions to history at the national, state, or local level that
would equate to historical significance.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 25 of 30
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criteria B or 2.
Criteria C/3
Constructed in 1970, Orange Pool is primarily composed in a Mid-Century Modern architectural style but
features a variety of transitional architectural elements that reflect a mixture of Bay Region Modernism, and
even Late Modernism. Overall, the building’s composition is a transitional design that reflects a variety of
architectural movements typical to the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although the building’s architecture has
interesting qualities, the end product is a design that lacks a definable architectural vision or cohesive
architectural character. Rather, the architecture of Orange Pool reflects a somewhat dislocated series of
elements, features, materials, and characteristics that pulled from a variety of architectural styles and were
applied in a way that is successful in some compacities and disjointed in others.
Overall, the mixture of quintessential Mid-Century Modern forms—the broad, low-pitched, triangular
folded roof plates; broad overhanging eaves with prominent wood beam construction and exposed rafter
tails; and expansive window openings—is combined with an almost Brutalist material palette of scored
concrete masonry unit blocks and raw concrete pillars that reflect a shift towards a more Late Modern
aesthetic that had emerged during the mid- to late 1960s and continued throughout the 1970s. Further, the
building retains “woodsy” characteristics that are typical to various Bay Region Modern architectural
movements and traditions, which utilize an inherently Arts and Crafts-inspired aesthetic, albeit in a Modern
application. For these reasons, the subject building does not significantly exhibit characteristics of one
architectural style, but rather represents an amalgamation of several architectural treatments.
The Orange Pool building does not appear to be the significant work of a master architect. The architects
responsible for the building, the firm of Yull-Thornton, Warner & Levikow, was a San Francisco–based firm
that operated during the late 1960s and 1970s, following the death of the founding architect Gardner A.
Dailey. While Dailey is undoubtedly considered a master architect, the work of Yuill-Thornton, Warner &
Levikow is less clear as many of their commissions involved completing projects originally contracted under
Dailey. Overall, the subject building appears to be a typical example of the Yuill-Thornton, Warner &
Levikow portfolio and does not exhibit any qualities or elements that would elevate it to a level of historical
significance. Therefore, the subject building does not appear to represent the work of a master architect.
The Orange Pool building was constructed by the Martinelli Construction Company, which was a notable
San Francisco–based construction company that operated in the San Francisco Bay Area for much of the
twentieth century. Although available scholarship and documentation about the Martinelli Construction
Company and their catalogue of work is not cohesive, the firm appears to have worked on hundreds of
notable properties throughout the region, particularly on commercial, civic, institutional, and medical
projects. While their overall catalogue of work is unclear at this time and it is not necessarily clear if they
qualify as masters, the Orange Pool does not appear to exhibit any characteristics or qualities that would
likely qualify as a significant representation of their work.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criteria C or 3.
Criteria D/4
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 26 of 30
Criteria D and 4, and the potential to yield significant information is primarily utilized for architectural sites
or similar resources and is rarely used for historical resources. For elements of the built environment to
qualify as significant under this criterion, the property usually is able to provide new information about
construction methods or similar contexts. Constructed in 1970, the Orange Pool building is a typical
municipal indoor swimming pool, the construction methods, engineering, and architecture of which are
thoroughly understood. As such, the subject building is highly unlikely to yield significant information.
Therefore, Orange Pool does not appear to qualify as historically significant under Criteria D or 4.
Historical Integrity
The NRHPA and CRHR requires that, in addition to retaining historical significance, a historical resource
must retain sufficient integrity in order to qualify as eligible for listing. As discussed above, Orange Pool
does not appear to exhibit historical significance under any of the required CRHR criteria, rendering an
assessment of historical integrity as unnecessary.
Overall, the Orange Pool building does not appear to qualify as eligible for listing in the CRHR and NRHP
Summary
The Orange Pool building has a general lack of significance, the line does not meet eligibility criteria for listing
in the NRHP, CRHR, or recognition as historical resource for the purposes of CEQA or under Section 106 of
the NHPA.
Bibliography
“Belagamba, Gerald
1938 “Why Recreation Center is Needed.” The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal.
September 16.
Brown, Mary.
2011 San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design: 1935-2970 – Historic Context Statement.
Final draft prepared for the City and County of San Francisco Planning Department. January
12.
City and County of San Francisco Planning Department (San Francisco Planning Department)
2017 “Draft Landmark Designation Report – Peace Pagoda & Peace Plaza, Peace Plaza, Japantown.”
April 3. Available at: https://commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/2014.1050L.pdf.
Accessed June 9, 2023.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 27 of 30
City of South San Francisco
2019 “Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report.” In Shape South San Francisco
2040 General Plan. December.
Daly, Pamela
2022 “Historic Context of the City of South San Francisco: History of the City of South San
Francisco 1848 to 1972.” Prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division. June.
Garcia, Lola
2002 “Orange Avenue Memorial Park – Once Known as the Willows.” March. Published in The
Industrial City Echoes Newsletter No.145. Historical Society of South San Francisco, South San
Francisco, California, March 2019: p. 4.
Gates + Associates
2015 “Parks + Recreation Master Plan, City of South San Francisco, California.” Prepared for the
City of South San Francisco. July 22.
GE Consultants, Inc. and Mead & Hunt
2017 Mid-Century Modern in the City of Sacramento Historic Context Statement and Survey Results.
Prepared for the City of Sacramento. September.
Gordon, Danielle, and Betsy Frederick (Gordon and Frederick)
2002 “Inventory of the Gardner A. Dailey Collection, 1923-1979.” Environmental Design Archives,
University of California, Berkeley. Available at:
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt396nb7zw/entire_text/. Accessed June 3, 2023.
National Park Service
1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm. Accessed May 2023.
San Francisco Chronicle
1954 “Julius Martinelli.” August 31.
San Mateo Daily Journal
2010 “Orange Memorial Park in South San Francisco.” May 17. San Mateo, California.
2022 “South San Francisco to Get New Aquatic Center at Orange Park.” March 15. San Mateo,
California.
South San Francisco Enterprise-Journal
1972 “Register Today for Rec Classes.” January 5.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 28 of 30
1973a “SSF High School Football Coach Tackles Swimmers, Too.” August 29.
1973b “Pool Closed.” September 7.
1977 “Orange Pool to Close.” November 9.
Taper, Bernard
1967 “The King of Ranchers.” In American Heritage, Volume 18, No 5. August. Available at:
https://www.americanheritage.com/king-ranchers. Accessed June 6, 2023.
The Enterprise
1913 “City Parks on the Peninsula.” April 19. South San Francisco, California.
1921 “Ball Game at New Park Ends in Tie.” May 20. South San Francisco, California.
The Enterprise and the South San Francisco Journal
1925 “Pete Lind to Barbecue on Orange Ave. Day.” March 26.
1927 “The New Baseball Park.” October 14.
1928a “Three Hundred and Ten.” June 8.
1928b “Hynding Suggests Swimming Pool in Orange Ave. Park; Heads Committee.” October 19.
1929 “Parents Plead for Safety of School Children Walking on Bayshore Road.” December 6.
1930a “City to Vote on $100,000 Park Project, Natatorium, Paving Plan in February.” January 10.
1930b “City Economizes in Producing Own Shrubs for Parks.” January 17.
1930c “Legal Notices – Ordinance No.153.” February 7.
1930d “Business Men Endorse $185,000 Bond Project.” February 14.
1930e “Voters to Decide Fate of City Park Plan.” February 21.
1930f “Bond Issues Meet Smashing Defeat at Polls Tuesday.” February 28.
1934 “City May Block County Garbage Disposal Plan.” January 5.
1937 “Development of Park Supported.” June 11.
1938a “Insurance Fight Ended by Council.” January 21.
1938b “Better than Last Year – Stelling.” March 4.
1938c “Fence Contract Awarded by City.” July 8.
1938d “Archery in Orange Avenue Park to be Permitted.” October 7.
The San Francisco Examiner
1954 “J. Martinelli, Builder, Dies.” August 31.
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Orange Pool
Page 29 of 30
The San Mateo Post
1963 “S.S.F. Swim Pool Plans Detailed.” March 20. San Mateo, California.
The Times, San Mateo Times, and Daily News Leader (The Times)
1960a “Community Centers Read.” October 18.
1960b “County Adopts New Sales Tax.” November 22. San Mateo, California.
1968a “S.S.F. Survey is Criticized.” March 29. San Mateo, California.
1968b “No Boost in S.S.F. Pool.” December 12. San Mateo, California.
1969a “A Great New Civic Achievement – South San Francisco’s New Indoor Swimming Pool.” July
25. San Mateo, California.
1969b “New Police Station Seen at South S.F.” September 22. San Mateo, California.
1969c “Ground Breaking Ceremonies for the South San Francisco Municipal Swimming Pool.”
December 11. San Mateo, California.
1970 “S.S.F. Pool Work Rapped.” November 4. San Mateo, California.
1971 “Dedication.” April 7, 1971. San Mateo, California.
University of California, Santa Barbara Library, Geospatial – Aerial Photography Collection (UCSB)
1941 “Flight C-660, Frame 28.” March 23. Available at:
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed June 3, 2023.
1965 “Flight CAS_65_130, Frame 1-52.” May 1. Available at:
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed June 3, 2023.
Page 30 of 30 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Orange Memorial Park
Pool House
*Map Name: South San Francisco, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 2021
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
APPENDIX C
Trip Generation and VMT Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
June 21, 2023 Project# 29167
To: Julie Barlow, Principal Planner
SWCA Environmental Consultants
95 3rd Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
From: Dhawal Kataria, AICP and Aaron Elias, P.E.
RE: Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center Trip Generation and VMT Assessment
BACKGROUND
Kittelson has drafted this memorandum to report the results of a trip generation and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) screening assessment for the redevelopment of Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center located at 1
W Orange Ave, South San Francisco, CA (“project”). The project involves the demolition of the current
aquatic center building, which houses an indoor swimming pool spanning 11,840 square feet. In its place, a
new building will be constructed adjacent to the existing structure, offering both indoor and outdoor
swimming pools with a combined area of 26,000 square feet. In terms of swimming lanes, the current pool
accommodates six (6) lap lanes. The proposed pool will feature a total of 17 lap lanes — seven indoor
lanes and ten outdoor lanes.
The pool has typically operated year-round, seven days a week, offering critical life-skill/safety learn-to
swim programs, recreation, fitness, therapy, health, and wellness activities. Prior to the pandemic, public
demand for aquatic programs has grown year over year, well beyond the pool’s capacity. The trip
generation at the swimming pool can vary widely due to season, temperature, and special events.
The purpose of this memorandum is to quantify vehicle trip generation for the proposed facility to assess the
impact on air quality and surrounding roadways. The VMT assessment will assist the city in determining
whether the proposed project would have California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation
impacts, as defined by the Transportation Analysis Guidelines from the city of South San Francisco.1
TRIP GENERATION
To estimate the trip generation, typical but busy conditions at the existing pool site were analyzed. Kittelson
collected counts on Thursday, May 18, 2023, and Saturday, May 20, 2023, during typical operating hours
(9AM – 5 PM) using a video camera and counting the number of groups that enter and exit the existing
building. For the purpose of estimating the overall vehicle trip generation, it was assumed that each group
arriving or departing from the building together did so in a single vehicle. This is considered conservative
since some groups may have walked from the nearby neighborhood. The trip generation is estimated for
weekday daily trips, Saturday daily trips, and trips during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours.
Kittelson explored several ways to estimate the trip generation for the proposed project and determined
that utilizing swimming lap lanes to estimate how trip generation will change with the new facility is the
most appropriate approach. This method directly correlates the number of visitors at the aquatic center
1 South San Francisco Transportation Analysis Guidelines, 2022, retrieved from
https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28133/638030656714470000
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
June 21, 2023 Page 2
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center VMT Assessment & Trip Generation
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
with the number of lap lanes today and then projects it for the new facility. It is important to consider that
this projection does not account for the anticipated shift in mode choice as the city aims to promote
active transportation modes. Hence, the linear projection of trips from the existing counts can be
considered to result in a conservative estimate.
Table 1 presents the counts collected at the existing facility and projects them linearly for a growth from 6
lap lanes to 17 total lap lanes. During the AM peak hour (identified as 11:55 AM to 12:55 PM), the project is
expected to generate a total of 65 new vehicle trips (from 35 existing to 100 in future), while during the PM
peak hour (identified as 3:55 PM to 4:55 PM), there will be 123 new trips (from 67 existing to 190 in future). On
Saturdays, the peak hour (11:15 AM to 12:15 PM) trips are estimated to reach 182 (from 99 existing to 281 in
future). Lastly, the project is projected to contribute 436 net new trips on a typical weekday and 986 net
new vehicle trips on a Saturday.
Table 1 Trip Generation
Scenario Size Weekday
Daily
Saturday
Daily
Weekday AM
Peak Hour
Weekday PM
Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Pedestrian
Group
Counts
(Existing)
6 Lap
Lanes 238 538 14 21 35 43 24 67 57 42 99
Proposed
Site
(Projected)
17
Lap
Lanes
674 1,524 40 60 100 122 68 190 162 119 281
Net New
Project
Trips 436 986 26 39 65 79 44 123 105 77 182
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023
VMT ASSESSMENT
Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed the way transportation studies are conducted in CEQA documents.
Intersection Level of service and delay are no longer applied for CEQA with vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
used for impact assessment. Specifically, SB 743 updated the way transportation impacts are measured for
development projects, based on the number of daily trips and the distance traveled by those trips to their
destinations (Total VMT).
According to the technical advisory by the State of California’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
Technical Advisory (December 2018, pages 13-15) and the more specific City of South San Francisco VMT
Guidelines (page 8), the proposed land use project can be classified as “Locally Serving Public Facility”
and is presumed to not require a CEQA VMT analysis.2 Similar to retail, the assumption is the demand for
swimming is likely already present but residents are using other pools further away. An expanded Orange
Pool facility will provide additional classes and opportunities for recreational swimmers closer to the city to
better meet the demand from South San Francisco residents. Therefore, the development of the project will
reduce the overall contribution of pool trips to regional VMT because residents of South San Francisco will
be able to use their local pool which has less capacity constraints to meet their swimming needs rather
2 Locally serving public facilities that encompasses government, civic, cultural, health, and infrastructure uses and
activity which contribute to and support community needs. Locally serving public facilities include police stations, fire
stations, passive parks (parks designed for use in an informal way and typically less developed), branch libraries,
community centers, public utilities, and neighborhood public schools.
June 21, 2023 Page 3
Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center VMT Assessment & Trip Generation
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
than traveling farther away to pools in other communities like the Brisbane Community Pool or the Jean E.
Brink Swimming Pool (Pacifica). This reduces the overall trip length for South San Francisco residents which
will reduce regional VMT.
CONCLUSION
Based on our analysis, Kittelson concludes the following:
• Vehicle trip generation is anticipated to increase since both the pool size and number of lap
lanes will increase by more than double with the new pool compared to the old pool. The
increase in vehicle trip generation is conservatively estimated at 65 trips in the AM peak hour, 123
trips in the PM peak hour and 182 on a Saturday peak hour. Total daily vehicle trip generation is
projected to increase by about 436 on weekdays and 986 on weekends.
• Regional VMT with the project is estimated to decrease because an expanded Orange Pool will
provide additional capacity to better meet the needs of residents of South San Francisco who will
be able to drive to a more local pool rather than one farther away reducing trip length and VMT.