Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSSF Park and Rec Master Plan Initial Study/Neg Dec 06-2015 CSSF ITY OF OUTH AN RANCISCO PRP ARKS AND ECREATION MASTER LAN Initial Study/Negative Declaration June 2015 Prepared by ' ³¤² Ç !²²®¢¨ ³¤² %.6)2/.-%.4!, #(%#+,)34 &/2-  0±®©¤¢³ ³¨³«¤ City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan ‘ ,¤ £  ¦¤­¢¸ ­ ¬¤  ­£  ££±¤²² City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 ’ #®­³ ¢³ ¯¤±²®­  ­£ ¯§®­¤ ­´¬¡¤± Tony Rozzi, AICP Senior Planner 650-877-8535 [email protected] “ 0±®©¤¢³ «®¢ ³¨®­ The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco California. The City is bounded on the north by Colma, Brisbane, and San Bruno Mounta and County Park, on the west by the City of Pacifica, on the south by San Bruno and the San Francisco International Airport, and on the east by the San Francisco Bay. ” 0±®©¤¢³ ²¯®­²®±R² ­ ¬¤  ­£  ££±¤²² City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 • '¤­¤± « 0« ­ £¤²¨¦­ ³¨®­ Various. Project is citywide – :®­¨­¦ Various. Project is citywide — $¤²¢±¨¯³¨®­ ®¥ 0±®©¤¢³ 02/*%#4 $%3#2)04)/. Introduction The proposed Project consists of the adoption and implementation Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) as well as proposed Plan. Project components are described below. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 1 June 2015 This Initial Study (IS) provides programmatic-level analysis of the proposed plans. The PRMP does not include development proposals and would not directly result in physical e construction and operation of facilities. Any future projects that would be imple subject to further CEQA review by the City. 0 ±ª²  ­£ 2¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ - ²³¤± 0« ­ (02-0) The PRMP provides: background and context for evaluating the existing parks system; an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities, and cu an analysis of the need for new, expanded or renovated parks and recreational programming; goals and recommendations for improving and maintaining the existing park goals and recommendations for acquiring or obtaining access to additional uses; a strategy for meeting the need for, managing and maintaining recreational facilities; and an approach for implementation of improvements and long term mai The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is organized in the followi #§ ¯³¤±  This Chapter gives a brief overview of the purpose of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and a summary of its contents. #§ ¯³¤± ‘ This Chapter discusses the physical context as well as the plann whose provisions relate to Parks and Recreation in the city, and notes policy direction and impact. #§ ¯³¤± ’ this evolving city. Further, it examines emerging trends in recreation, fitness and leisure activities, and wellness trends. #§ ¯³¤± “ -seven parks and open spaces and eight recreation facilities are described. #§ ¯³¤± ” Three comparable cities, Milpitas, San Bruno and Redwood City re their parks and facilities, recreational programs and financial operations. This Chapter analyzes South San performance, (2) establish goals, and (3) develop action plans. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 2 June 2015 #§ ¯³¤± • This plan was informed and guided by extensive community outreac briefly summarizes results. More complete details of outreach o #§ ¯³¤± – Based on the information gathered through outreach, observation, interviews wi analyzed. #§ ¯³¤± —ons Overall goals and specific recommendations are set forth in this standards, park access, sports field standards, park features an Master Plan and Aquatics Center, community center facilities, performing arts facilities, programm access, sustainability and technology. #§ ¯³¤± ˜ This Chapter discusses funding strategies for implementing the r The PRMP provides a policy framework including twelve overarching goals designed to support the long-5 years, as well as recommendations for achieving the goals. GOAL 1: South San Francisco should provide a minimum of 3 acres of developed parkland per 1,00 residents, and 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 employees. GOAL 2: Every South San Francisco resident should be within a 5-minute walk of a park, trail or open space. GOAL 3: South San Francisco should provide well maintained sports fields, incl rectangle fields suitable for regular practice, games, and tourn GOAL 4: Incorporate innovative amenities to serve multiple user groups aties are developed or existing parks are renovated. GOAL 5: and the backlog of deferred maintenance should be eliminated. GOAL 6: Complete the development of the 2007 Orange Memorial Park Master Plan, including purcha or long term agreement for use of the property currently owned b expanded indoor aquatics facility. GOAL 7: Develop a multi-use Community Center that will support the range of programming desired by the South San Francisco community. GOAL 8: SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 3 June 2015 GOAL 9: Expand programming capacity and efficiencies to effectively serv community. GOAL 10: and restoring unique habitat. GOAL 11: Incorporate sustainable features into parks and facilities to increase water conservation, energy efficiency, and habitat values, to encourage non-motorized transportation, and to educate about the environment. GOAL 12: Continue to develop technology for efficient administration, tra '¤­¤± « 0« ­ Amendments The proposed General Plan Amendments provide recommended policy South San PRMP recommendations are based. The General Plan Amendments would include edits and additions to existing text and policies in various sections of the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element and the Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation section of the Open Space and Conservation Element. These amendments integrate the objectives of the PRMP -term planning framework. The proposed amendments to the General Plan text and provided in Appendix A of this Initial Study. ˜ 3´±±®´­£¨­¦ « ­£ ´²¤²  ­£ ²¤³³¨­¦0±®©¤¢³R² ²´±±®´­£¨­¦² Parks, open space and recreational facilities are distributed th  /³§¤± ¯´¡«¨¢  ¦¤­¢¨¤² ¶§®²¤  ¯¯±®µ « ¨² ±¤°´¨±¤£ (¤¦þ ¯¤±¬ ¯ ±³¨¢¨¯ ³¨®­  ¦±¤¤¬¤­³) The proposed Project would not require action by any other agenc SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 4 June 2015 %.6)2/.-%.4!, &!#4/23 0/4%.4)!,,9 !&&%#4%$ The environmental factors checked below would be potentially aff Aesthetics !¦±¨¢´«³´±¤  ­£ &®±¤²³±¸ !¨± 1´ «¨³¸ "¨®«®¦¨¢ « 2¤²®´±¢¤² Cultural Resources Geology/Soils '±¤¤­§®´²¤ ' ² %¬¨²²¨®­² ( ¹ ±£²  ­£ ( ¹ ±£®´² (¸£±®«®¦¸7 ³¤± 1´ «¨³¸ Materials , ­£ 5²¤0« ­­¨­¦ -¨­¤± « 2¤²®´±¢¤² Noise Population/Housing 0´¡«¨¢ 3¤±µ¨¢¤² Recreation Transportation/Traffic 5³¨«¨³¨¤²3¤±µ¨¢¤ 3¸²³¤¬² - ­£ ³®±¸ &¨­£¨­¦² ®¥ Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant ef a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significa there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in th 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 o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially signifi 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 been addressed by mitigation measures 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 significahe environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequatel or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date: *´­¤ þ 2015 0±¨­³¤£ . ¬¤ 3 ¨«¤²§ -¤§± þ 0« ­­¨­¦ - ­ ¦¤± For: #¨³¸ ®¥ 3®´³§ 3 ­ &± ­¢¨²¢® SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 5 June 2015 #%1! %C .6)2/.-%.4!, HECKLIST The following section adapts and completes the environmental che CEQA Guidelines. The checklist is used to describe the impacts o For this checklist, the following designations are used: Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identifie Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA r existing standards. No Impact: The project would not have any impact. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS: 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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a-c) .® )¬¯ ¢³ The Goals and Recommendations of the PRMP do not grant any entitleme potential to degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment or made based on the Goals and Recommendations of the PRMP would occur in currently developed areas throughout the City. Provision of additional park, open space an aesthetic effect and visual character surrounding the facility. velopment project that would implement the PRMP recommendations would be subject to applicabl as be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Continued implementation of City General Plan pol SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 6 June 2015 Zoning Regulations would manage the appearance of any structuralding scenic corridors, to ensure that there would be no impacts to scenic vi d) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ Potential improvements to park facilities could result in an inc the impact on surrounding properties would be expected to be les that the city should study locations where lighting may be provided without detriment residential neighbors. Recommended lighting improvements would standards set forth in South San Francisco Municipal Code Sectio010G, which have been designed to require lighting that does not produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. Photometric analysis shall be submitted to the City demonstratin any potential projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: 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? a¤) .® )¬¯ ¢³ SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 7 June 2015 The City is built out and contains no important farmland, land z Williamson Act contract. Similarly, the City does not contain anand or timberland or any land zoned for such uses. The proposed Project does not include any development would result in the conversion of agricultural or forestland to ct would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a¤) .® )¬¯ ¢³ The City is located within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAA prepared an Ozone with the national 1-hour ozone standard and the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). The emissions inventories contained in these plans are based on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the region. Projects increase in population or employment growth beyond that identified in regional or community plans could result in increases in VMT and subsequently increase mobile source emis air quality planning efforts. The proposed PRMP will not impact the rate or intensity of development. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the air quality plans pre District to attain State and national air quality standards, or The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs or grant any entitlements for development. It provides only concepts for SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 8 June 2015 recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in imple improvements in the future. Future construction entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, S consistency with the goals, policies, and standards established within the other elements of the General Plan that are intended to protect air quality. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Future implementing actions of the PRMP would not include any new housing or employment centers and would not result in population or employm beyond that identified in regional or community plans. The project would not result in any indirect or cumulatively adverse impacts on air quality. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substanti concentrations or objectionable odors. The proposed PRMP recommends potential linear parks which would -motorized transportation, thus reducing potential impacts to air quality. It includes recommendations for additional parkland within the city, which would result in additional landscape and Recommendations for additional parks in underserved areas would reduce the need for vehicle trips to access parks, thus reducing potential impacts to air quality. It also includes recommendations for energy-efficiency, which may result in an indirect improvement to air quality. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on air quality. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: 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 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 9 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation 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? 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? a£) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ Although the PRMP provides concepts for recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future, it does not include any site specific designs for development projects, or grant any entitlements for development. Any future project that would implement PRMP recommendations would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulat significant wildlife habitat (see Discussion IV (ef) below). Future projects would also be subject to project spec CEQA analysis of project-level impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes proposed PRMP. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions (in partic-G-1, 7.1-G-2, 7.1-I-1, and 7.1-I-4), as well as compliance with applicable existing regulations, federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act, would ensure impacts to biological resources in the City would be less than s e-¥) .® )¬¯ ¢³ South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for angered species and covered under the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Pl: the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the city limits, and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated as General Plan Figure 7-2). As discussed above, the proposed PRMP and General Plan Amendments would have no direct impact on biological resources. The proposed PRMP provides general recommendations for improved access and expansion of parkland on Sign Hill, and identifies an within the Terrabay Specific Plan District area which could expand access to San Bruno Mountain. ndations regarding the habitat conservation areas include vegetation management for preservation and improvement o habitat, and trail improvements to prevent erosion and discourag-trail usage which could compromise habitat. As per General Plan Policy 7.1-I-1, a biological resource assessment was prepared for Sign Hill in conjunction with SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 10 June 2015 the preparation of recommendations, and is incorporated into the Specific Plan District, SSF Municipal Code Section 20.240.011 requires implementation of all measures necessary to protect environmental quality as set forth in HCP and related EI-I-1, cooperation with state and federal agencies prior to the development of any areas will ensure that improvements do not substantially affect special-status species. Furthermore, all future improvement projects tha would implement the PRMP would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and consultation with and federal wildlife conservation plans. There would be no impact. Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.30) applies to property within the city. Vegetation management, parks maintenance and any future development con the PRMP would be required to comply with the requirements of th Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), along with the Cof Brisbane, Daly City, San Mateo County, improvements recommended by the PRMP would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipa proposed project would have no impact on resource protection and 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Sig­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a£) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ Cultural resources include historic buildings and structures, hiicts, historic sites, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, and other prehistoric and historic objects The PRMP includes recommendations registered in the National Registry of Historic Places in 1996. Sign Hill and protecting and restoring its habitat value. It al discourage off-trail use. These recommendations are intended to preserve and e SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 11 June 2015 resource, and would not be expected to result in adverse changes Most policy recommendations in the PRMP would have no direct impact on cultural resources, but future activities to implement the PRMP could adversely affect these resources. C potential to adversely affect cultural resources. However, Gener-I-4 requires a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources, and Policy 7.5-I-5 requires preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that resources addition, Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code speci remains are discovered that requires consultation with the Native American H and appropriate Native Americans, if appropriate, to ensure proper handling of the remains. Finally, any future development projects that would implement PRMP recommendations would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor text chaadditions to integrate the proposed PRMP -range planning document. The amendments do not include any changes that could directly impact cultural resources. This impact would be less th 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ Les² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? 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? SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 12 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation 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 risks to life or property? 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? ae) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ South San Francisco is located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are approximately 30 known faults in the San Francisco Bay Area, 11 of which are within 40 miles of the City that are considered capable of generating earthquakes (City of South San Francisco 1999). The policy recommendations of the PRMP would not directly result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with seismic activity or soil instability. The recommendations of the proposed PRMP do not include any site-specific designs, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Future projects that would implement the proposed PRMP would not include any habitable structures. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor text cha integrate the proposed -range planning document. The amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes that could result in the exposure of people or structures to haz associated with seismic activity, soil instability or soil erosion. The design-controllable aspects of protection from seismic ground motion an instability are governed by existing regulations of the State of California (California B Code, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 2) or the City of South San Francisco (South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15). These regulations require that project designs reduce potential adverse soils, geology, and seismicity effects levels. Compliance with these regulations is required, not optional. Com by a project applicant to have be project construction would be issued. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, landslides, unstable soils, expansive soils, or septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The PRMP recommends improvements to the trails on Sign Hill to p a positive impact on soil erosion. Ground disturbance during construction of facilities associated RMP would have the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. How Plan SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 13 June 2015 Policy 7.2-I-1 require future development projects to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) statewide General Construction permit NPDES program regulates point source discharges caused by general construction activities and the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. As part of the permit application process, projects would require a stormwater polluti prevention plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of best management practices (BMPs) t the site both during and post-construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation. City of Sout Francisco Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 provides further protection fro requirements for implementation of BMPs. Continued implementation of the City Municipal Code and compliance with state law would minimize potential soil erosion impacts. This impact would be less than significant. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: 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? ab) .® )¬¯ ¢³ - - - - SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 14 June 2015 Additionally, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2014 pur reductions are addressed in the Climate Action Plan, and are consistent with the statewide reduction goals of A 32. Potential recreation facility projects implementing the PRMP would also be evaluated for their consistency with the Climate Action Plan 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Signif¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 15 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ac),¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, grant any entitlements for development, or change any land use designations or zoning and would have no potential to directly result in the routine handling, generation, transportation, emission, or accidental release of hazardous materials or otherwise expose the public to hazardous substances. Additionally, the PRMP does not propose any project installation of hazardous materials that could be released by ac within one-quarter mile of a school. Although it provides conceptual recommendations, these are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. However, future activiRMP could involve the limited use of hazardous materials during constructi fuels, solvents, pesticides, etc.). The amount of materials used would be small, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, assuming such use complies with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including, but not limite of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Hazardous materials regulations, which are codified in Titles 8, enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes d additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. These amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes that could result in the exposure of people to risks associated with hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant. d),¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ The proposed PRMP is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific designs, grant any entitlements for development, or change any land use designations or zoning. Therefore, they would have no potential to directly result in development of a known hazardous release site. Future activities could invol development and/or expansion of park and recreation facilities. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (2015) Envirostor database of hazardous materials release sites, ther materials release sites in the City. Because specific improvemen time, it cannot be determined if they would be constructed on or near a known hazardous release site. However, any future development project that would implement PRMP measures would be subject to future environmental review, SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 16 June 2015 which would include a search of appropriate databases to determine whether the site is a listed hazardous materials site and the status of the site at the time improvements are proposed (e.g., or cleanup action is required or if the case is closed). If improve hazardous materials site, the project would be required to comply with applicable federal, sta and local regulations related to hazardous materials, which would ensure there would be minimal risk of significant hazard to the public or the . environment e),¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯act and within the San Mateo County The City is located immediately north of San Francisco Internati According to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (C/CAG 2012), all but the northern and western portions of the City are located within Airport Influence Area B. Within Area B, real estate disclosures required and the ALUC must review proposed land use policy actioand land development proposals. The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, grant any entitlements for development, or change any land use designations or zoning. The policies of the PRMP would not directly result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with airport operations. Implementation of the PRMP would not result in the construction of any habitable structures. The PRMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing improvements. If specific improvement projects would within any applicable safety and compatibility policies of the Land Use Compatibility Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes implement the proposed PRMP. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions such as Policy 8.7-I-1, which restricts land uses in the vicinity of San Francisco Compatibility Plan, would minimize potential hazards related to airport operations. Theref be less than significant. f).® )¬¯ ¢³ There are no private airstrips in the City. There would be no impact. ¦) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ The proposed PRMP policies do not include any site specific designs or changes to existing land use designations. Implementation actions that implement the policies of the PRMP could require temporary road closures during construction phases. However, any closures would be short-term, and alternative routes would be provided as necessary. It is unlikely that these actions would significantly emergency response or evacuation plans. Further, all future improvement projects could subject to further CEQA analysis of project- specific impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. §) .® )¬¯ ¢³ The proposed PRMP does not include improvements that would expose people or structures to significant risk of wildland fires. There would be no impact. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 17 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 18 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?  þ ¥) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ The PRMP does not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The PRMP policies would have no direct impact on water quality, and its concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements, and as such would have no direct impact on water quality. Future activities could introduce pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could potentially degrade downstream water quality. Improvements developed as part of the PRMP implementation, and construction of future parks and recreation facilities could result in soil erosion and sedimentation and result in pollutants entering stormwater runoff during rain events (i.e., fuels, oil, solvents, paints, trash). In addition, operation of these facilities could also introduce limited amounts of pollutants into stormwater runoff, such as pesticides landscaped areas. Any future construction would be required to comply with applicable policies related to hydrology and water quality issues, including the requirements o enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which requ Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction runoff and long-term urban runoff. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes implement the proposed PRMP. The amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes that could result in water quality degradation. As discussed above, ground disturbance during construction of fa PRMP would have the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, existing state law and General Plan Policy 7.2-I-1 require future development projects to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst (NPDES) statewide General Construction permit. The NPDES program regulates point source discharges caused by general construction activities and the general quality of stormwater in part of the permit application process, projects would require a stormwa plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented on the site both during and after construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Post-construction urban stormwater runoff measures would require the City to implement structural and non-structural BMPs that would mimic or improve predevelopment quantity and quality runoff conditions from new development and South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 provides further prot with requirements for implementation of BMPs. Continued implementation of the City Mun Code and compliance with state law would minimize potential soil erosion impacts. This impact would be less than significant. ¡) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ The City has two water suppliers, the California Water Service Company, Peninsula District (CWSC), which serves the portion of the City east of Interstate 280 (I-280), and the Westborough County Water District, which serves the area west of I-280. The PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, nor does it grant any entitlements for SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 19 June 2015 development that would have the potential to deplete groundwater interfere with groundwater recharge. The PRMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing improvements. The PRMP includes Goal 10, to incorporate sustainable features into parks and facilities to increase water conservation. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. The amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes that could result in groundwater depletion or interference with recharge. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and the South San Francisco Zoning Regulations would minimize im groundwater. This impact would be less than significant. ce) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ The PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. The PRMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in ementing these types of improvements. Improvements to implement the PRMP could alter drainage patterns and runoff rates, resulting in flooding and/or exceedance of the drainage s, however, improvements associated with the PRMP would be located in currently developed areas, such as existing residential neighborhoods and transit centers, to increase opportunities for active and passive recreation. Any new facilities would be required to be designed to accommodate stormwater collection and conveyance into approved facilities, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes implement the proposed PRMP. Continued implementation of City development standards would minimize impacts related to impact would be less than significant. ¦) No Impact The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in There would be no impact. §) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ Future implementing actions for the proposed PRMP could include structures. Because specific improvement projects are not known at this time, the precise location of these improvdetermined. Should improvements be proposed for development within a special flood would require issuance of a development permit by the City and would be subject to the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of cipal Code, which is intended to promote the public safety and m due to flood conditions. This impact would be less than significant. ¨þ©) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ )¬¯ ¢³ Earthquakes can cause tsunami (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the San Francisco Bay. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the San Francisco Bay, and the hillsides within San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, the City is subject to risk of inundation from tsunami, seiche, and mudflow. However, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing habitable structures and would not result in population growth. Therefore, the Project would not increase exposure of persons to the risk of inundation from tsunami, seiche, or mudfl significant. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 20 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ac) No Impact The proposed PRMP does not propose any changes to existing land use designations o and anticipates that General Plan. None of the improvements contemplated in the PRMP would create barriers that could divide the community, rather, they are intended to provide open space links to join communities and pro amenities to bring communities together. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. The amendments would not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes that could result in the division of the community. There would be no impact The proposed PRMP does not include any changes to existing land use designations or zoning. The proposed General Plan Amendments include minor text changes and additions intended to implement the PRMP. There would be no nance, or other land use planning documents. There would be no impact. As discussed in the Biological Resources section, South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for conservation of threatened and endangered species: the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the City limits, and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated as parkland by the-2). These areas are designated by the General Plan as parkland, within the area of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The City is currently not participating in a Natural Community C consistent with the all potential improvements implementing the PRMP would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. General Plan Policy 7.1-I-1 would require the preparation of biological resource assessments and cooperation with state and federal agencies prior to the development of any improvements in these areas in order to ensure that development does not substan-status species. The PRMP contains as an Appendix a Biological Resources Assessme2015 which contains recommendations for protection and preservation of the Furthermore, all future improvement projects that would implementRMP would be subject to further CEQA SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 21 June 2015 analysis of project-specific impacts. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and consultation with applicable state habitat conservation plans. There would be no impact. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: 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? ab) No Impact The proposed PRMP does not propose improvements or conceptual plans that would have the potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. There are no mines included on the Office of Mine Reclamation AB South San Francisco. Future implementation activities would occur within the City, which is an urbanized area that contains no known significant mineral resources or resource are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the Cit types of improvements, they would have no direct impact on mineral resources or mineral recovery sites. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes implement the proposed PRMP. The amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes that could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally important mineral resourc recovery site. Therefore, there would be no impact. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 22 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ac) ,¤²² ³§ ­ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these improvements in the future. As a policy document the PRMP would have no direct impacts related to noise, but future implementing actions could result in the generation of no Generally, the operation of parks, open spaces and recreation facilities would not generate significant noise. To the extent that these could be considered noise generators, General Plan Policy 9-I-8 requires the control of noise at the source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques. Compliance with this policy would ensure this impact is less than significant. d) ,¤²² ³§ ­ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, grant any entitlements for development, or SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 23 June 2015 propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these improvements in the future. Construction of facilities associated with the PRMP could exceed noise standards. However, the South San Francisco Municipal Code includes special provisions in Sectregulate allowable noise generated by construction or by special events. Compliance with the limitations of Municipal Code Section 8.32 would ensure that construction noise levels and noise from special events would not exceed noise limitations established by the City. This would be a less than significant impact. e) ,¤²² ³§ ­ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact and within the San Mateo County The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport According to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (C/CAG 2012), all but the northern and western portions of the City are located within Airport Influence Area B. Within Area B, the ALUC must review proposed land use policy actions and land development proposals, and real estate disclosures are required notifying buyers of potential aircraft noise. The proposed Project would not, directly or indi construction of any residential uses. Future implementation actions could result in construction of fa would require on-site employees. However, these future uses would be subject to t provisions contained standards related to airport operations. Compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that this impact would be less than significant. f) No Impact There are no private airstrips in the City. There would be no impact. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 24 June 2015 a-c) No Impact The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these improvements in the future. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Future improvements would not include the development of any new housing or employment centers that would increase the population directly or induce population growth. Therefore, there would be no impact. The proposed PRMP includes policy recommendations and provides only concept plans for park and recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these improvements in the future. Future actions would not require the demolition of existing housing or construction of housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: 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? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) No Impact The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 25 June 2015 facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these improvements in the future. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes tions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. The proposed PRMP implements the goals of the existing General Plan, rather than generating increased needs. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on public services. Future implementing actions of the PRMP would not include any residential uses or employment centers that would generate demand for public services. Therefore, there would be no impact. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XV. RECREATION: 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? a-b) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact The proposed PRMP would not increase population or the demand for park faciliti Recommended improvements to existing parks could increase usage. The intent park facilities, however, increased use is not projected to degr that South San backlog of deferred maintenance should be eliminated. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the PRPM would result in construction or expansion of recreational facilities which would expand park resources. These improvements would not be necessarily in response to increased demand for park services but rather would increase recreational opportunities th of these recreational facilities would be consistent with the General Plan, and would not have a foreseeably adverse physical effect on the environment since these improvements would improve existing neighborhood fac or add new facilities to underserved areas, thereby supporting l- quality recreational opportunities. Temporary impacts due to construction activities have been addressed in preceding sections, therefore impacts related to provision of pa significant. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 26 June 2015 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a-b) No Impact The proposed PRMP does not conflict with any plan, ordinance or policy regarding performanc system. The PRMP Goal 2, that every South San Francisco resident-minute walk of a park, trail or open space, ding Policy 4.2-G-8 to strive reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. Future implementation of a PRMP recommendation which results in individual development project would be reviewed for the potential to result in project-level traffic impacts or contribution to cumulative adverse traffic conditions. Individual development projects are conditioned to p SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 27 June 2015 impacts, unless the City determines that there are considerationnefits from There would be no impact. c) No Impact The City is located immediately north of San Francisco Internati, and largely within the boundaries of the Compatibility Plan (C/CAP 2012). Nothing in the PRMP would result in development that would change air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks related to air traffic patterns. All fu implementing actions would also be Land Use Compatibility Plan and would not affect the location of air traffic patterns in the region. There would be no impact on air traffic patterns. d-e) No Impact Future improvements recommended by the PRMP will be carefully evaluated to ensure that bicycle, pedestrian, transit passengers and disabled travelers are provided safe and new design features would be added that could create hazardous conditions. Any future linear parks or other facilities would be reviewed by the city to ensure they would no would be no impact. f) No Impact The proposed PRMP is focused on improving access to park and recreation facilities, and encouraging non- motorized transportation, which support guiding policies of the General Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans, as well as the Climate Action Plan, all of which identify operation-modal transportation. No current or anticipated public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be negatively impacted by the improvement of addition of new park and recreation facilities since these governing documents would be considered for any future project. As such, there would be no impact. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 28 June 2015 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a-¢þ ¤-g) No Impact The proposed PRMP is located within an urbanized are currently s infrastructure. Existing utilities and service systems have adequate capacity to Francisco in terms of both existing parks and future potential park development. The wastewater conveyance infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco is in generall jointly owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Brunots all wastewater generated within the two cities and has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produce produced by the City of Daly City. The General Plan EIR indicatees were adequate, or would be improved in order to meet project water an The proposed PRMP does not grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation facility improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of im future. Future implementing actions of the PRMP would not include any residential uses or employment centers that would generate demand for utility services. Future implementing actions would be reviewed by the city for compliance with storm water quality requirements as established by the General Plan, Zoning The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on public utilities. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 29 June 2015 d) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact The California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases mos Water Department, provides water service to the City of South SaThe Westborough County Water District serves the area west of I-280. The CWSC has water supplies and plans for conveyance infrastructu adequate to meet the service demand projections of its service a Francisco. The PRMP does not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The PMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing improvements. Future improvements would inc development of park and recreation facilities, with minimal water demand for irrigation of landscaped areas. The PRMP includes Goal 11, to incorporate sustainable features into thus reducing water demand. Future implementing actions of the PRMP would not significantly increase water demand in the City. This impact would be less than significant. 0®³¤­³¨ ««¸ ,¤²² 4§ ­ ,¤²² 4§ ­ .® 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact Impact ¶¨³§ Impact Mitigation XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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? SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 30 June 2015 a) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact As described in Section IV, the proposed Project would have no d resources, and future implementing actions would be subject to applicable federal, sta local regulations that protect such o habitat management plans and associated policy provisions. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure that the Project would have a less than significant impact on pl wildlife species and their habitat. Similarly, as described in Section V, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on prehistoric and historic resources, and future implementing a General Plan policies and existing state regulations that protect such resour compliance with these policies and existing regulations would ensure that the Project would have a less than significant impact on prehistoric and historic resources. Furthermore, future implementing actions would be subject to further CEQA analysis o- specific impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. b) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact The proposed Project would not result in impacts that are indivi Future implementing actions could result in temporary impacts due to construction, but these impacts would be less than significant due to measures described in the sections an cumulatively considerable. c) ,¤²² 4§ ­ 3¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­³ Impact As described in the sections above, the proposed Project will not have significant environmental effe cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direct SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 31 June 2015 REFERENCES The following documents are referenced information sources utiliby this analysis: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 2 California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5(b), 2015. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. City of South San Francisco, 2014 City of South San Francisco General Plan. City of South San Fran 2015. City of South San Francisco General Plan Final Environmental Impouth San Francisco, 1999. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Enviro Airport. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo Cou DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2015. Envirostor May 21, 2015. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Habitat Conservation Plans, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what- we-do/hcp-overview.html Natural Community Conservation Planning, California Department o https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP. Plan Bay Area. Association of Bay Area Governments, 2013. San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), 2452696.1 SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 32 June 2015