Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting June '15 (Reso 2770-2015) - PC Parks Recreation Master Plan Exhibit A IS ND CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN Initial Study/Negative Declaration June 2015 Prepared by Gates + Associates SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2. Lead agency name and address: City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 3. Contact person and phone number: Tony Rozzi, AICP – Senior Planner 650-877-8535 [email protected] 4. Project location: The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco peninsula in San Mateo County, California. The City is bounded on the north by Colma, Brisbane, and San Bruno Mountain State 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. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 6. General Plan designation: Various. Project is citywide 7. Zoning: Various. Project is citywide 8. Description of Project: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction The proposed Project consists of the adoption and implementation of the City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) as well as proposed amendments to the City’s General Plan. Project components are described below. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 2 This Initial Study (IS) provides programmatic-level analysis of the proposed plans. The PRMP does not include any development proposals and would not directly result in physical environmental effects due to the construction and operation of facilities. Any future projects that would be implemented consistent with these plans would be subject to further CEQA review by the City. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) The PRMP provides:  background and context for evaluating the existing parks system;  an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities, and current conditions;  an analysis of the need for new, expanded or renovated parks and facilities, and for changes in recreational programming;  goals and recommendations for improving and maintaining the existing park and recreation system;  goals and recommendations for acquiring or obtaining access to additional properties for future park uses;  a strategy for meeting the need for, managing and maintaining recreational facilities; and  an approach for implementation of improvements and long term maintenance. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is organized in the following manner:  Chapter 1: Introduction This Chapter gives a brief overview of the purpose of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and a summary of its contents.  Chapter 2: Context This Chapter discusses the physical context as well as the planning context for the Master Plan. It identifies Plans whose provisions relate to Parks and Recreation in the city, and notes policy direction and impact.  Chapter 3: Demographics and Trends This Chapter provides a detailed look at the city’s current demographics and projections regarding future growth in this evolving city. Further, it examines emerging trends in recreation, fitness and leisure activities, as well as health and wellness trends.  Chapter 4: Inventory A comprehensive inventory of the city’s parks and its recreation facilities is included in this Chapter. Thirty-seven parks and open spaces and eight recreation facilities are described.  Chapter 5: Comparative Analysis Three comparable cities, Milpitas, San Bruno and Redwood City responded to detailed questionnaires regarding their parks and facilities, recreational programs and financial operations. This Chapter analyzes South San Francisco’s parks and programming in relation to these cities, in order to gain insights to: (1) measure performance, (2) establish goals, and (3) develop action plans. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 3  Chapter 6: Community Outreach This plan was informed and guided by extensive community outreach. This Chapter describes the process, and briefly summarizes results. More complete details of outreach outcomes are found in the Appendices.  Chapter 7: Program Assessment Based on the information gathered through outreach, observation, interviews with staff, and comparative analysis, the city’s recreational programming is assessed in this Chapter. Capacity, demand, funding, and resources are analyzed.  Chapter 8: Goals and Recommendations Overall goals and specific recommendations are set forth in this Chapter. Areas addressed include acreage standards, park access, sports field standards, park features and amenities, maintenance, Orange Memorial Park Master Plan and Aquatics Center, community center facilities, performing arts facilities, programming, open space access, sustainability and technology.  Chapter 9: Implementation This Chapter discusses funding strategies for implementing the recommendations. The PRMP provides a policy framework including twelve overarching goals designed to support implementation of the long-term vision for city’s parks, recreation and open space over the next 15 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 1,000 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, including diamond and rectangle fields suitable for regular practice, games, and tournament play.  GOAL 4: Incorporate innovative amenities to serve multiple user groups as new parks and facilities are developed or existing parks are renovated.  GOAL 5: South San Francisco’s parks and facilities should be regularly maintained to the highest standard, and the backlog of deferred maintenance should be eliminated.  GOAL 6: Complete the development of the 2007 Orange Memorial Park Master Plan, including purchase or long term agreement for use of the property currently owned by Cal Water, and construction of an 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: Provide facilities to support South San Francisco’s thriving performing arts community. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 4  GOAL 9: Expand programming capacity and efficiencies to effectively serve South San Francisco’s diverse community.  GOAL 10: Enhance access and educational value of South San Francisco’s open spaces, while protecting 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, tracking, and communications. General Plan Amendments The proposed General Plan Amendments provide recommended policy updates to the City of South San Francisco’s existing General Plan, including goals and policies upon which proposed 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 into the City’s long-term planning framework. The proposed amendments to the General Plan text and policies are provided in Appendix A of this Initial Study. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the Project's surroundings: Parks, open space and recreational facilities are distributed throughout the city. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) The proposed Project would not require action by any other agencies. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 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 significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date: June 10, 2015 Printed Name: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager For: City of South San Francisco SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 6 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following section adapts and completes the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. For this checklist, the following designations are used:  Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.  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 relative to existing standards.  No Impact: The project would not have any impact. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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) No Impact The Goals and Recommendations of the PRMP do not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment or adversely affect visual resources. Improvements 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 and trails in existing urbanized areas will enhance the aesthetic effect and visual character surrounding the facility. Any future development project that would implement the PRMP recommendations would be subject to applicable city regulations and requirements, as well 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 policy provisions and the South San Francisco SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 7 Zoning Regulations would manage the appearance of any structural development in the City, including scenic corridors, to ensure that there would be no impacts to scenic vistas and the existing visual character of the City. d) Less Than Significant Impact Potential improvements to park facilities could result in an increase in light intensity adjacent to the site, although the impact on surrounding properties would be expected to be less than significant. In addition, the PRPM states that the city should study locations where lighting may be provided without detriment to the surrounding residential neighbors. Recommended lighting improvements would be required to meet the performance standards set forth in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.010G, 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 demonstrating lighting requirements have been satisfied for any potential projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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–e) No Impact SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 8 The City is built out and contains no important farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Similarly, the City does not contain any forestland or timberland or any land zoned for such uses. The proposed Project does not include any development proposals or requests to rezone land or that would result in the conversion of agricultural or forestland to another use. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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–e) No Impact The City is located within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which has prepared an Ozone Attainment Plan and Clean Air Plan to address the basin’s nonattainment 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 that result in an 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 emissions, which could conflict with the BAAQMD’s 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 prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to attain State and national air quality standards, or violate any air quality standard. 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 June 2015 9 recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future. Future construction projects will continue to be reviewed through the City’s entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local, State, and federal air quality standards and 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 employment growth 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 substantial pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors. The proposed PRMP recommends potential linear parks which would increase the use of non-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 trees, thus having favorable impacts on air quality. 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 10 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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–d) Less Than Significant Impact 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 regulations that protect biological resources, including the City’s two habitat management plans adopted for those areas of the City that provide significant wildlife habitat (see Discussion IV (e–f) below). Future projects would also be subject to project specific CEQA analysis of project-level impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions (in particular, 7.1-G-1, 7.1-G-2, 7.1-I-1, and 7.1-I-4), as well as compliance with applicable existing regulations, including but not limited to the 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 significant. e-f) No Impact South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and covered under the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the city limits, and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated as parkland by the City (see 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 area within the Terrabay Specific Plan District area which could expand access to San Bruno Mountain. Goal 10 of the PRMP is to “Enhance access and educational value of South San Francisco’s open spaces, while protecting and restoring unique habitat.” Recommendations regarding the habitat conservation areas include vegetation management for preservation and improvement of habitat, and trail improvements to prevent erosion and discourage off-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 June 2015 11 the preparation of recommendations, and is incorporated into the PRMP as an appendix. Within the Terrabay 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 EIRs. Per General Plan Policy 7.1-I-1, cooperation with state and federal agencies prior to the development of any improvements in these areas will ensure that improvements do not substantially affect special-status species. Furthermore, all future improvement projects that 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 applicable state and federal wildlife agencies would ensure no conflicts with the City’s adopted habitat conservation plans. There would be no impact. Future development projects would be required to be consistent with local policies and ordinances. The city’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.30) applies to any tree designated as a protected tree on property within the city. Vegetation management, parks maintenance and any future development consistent with the PRMP would be required to comply with the requirements of this ordinance. The City participates in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), along with the City of Brisbane, Daly City, San Mateo County, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Title 20 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the City’s guidelines to require that construction of projects is consistent with the City’s habitat conservation plan. Projects and improvements recommended by the PRMP would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. In consideration of the above, the proposed project would have no impact on resource protection and preservation programs. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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–d) Less Than Significant Impact Cultural resources include historic buildings and structures, historic districts, historic sites, prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, and other prehistoric and historic objects and artifacts. The PRMP includes recommendations concerning Sign Hill, the location of the city’s iconic “South San Francisco The Industrial City” sign, which was registered in the National Registry of Historic Places in 1996. The recommendations include improving access to Sign Hill and protecting and restoring its habitat value. It also recommends improving trails to reduce erosion and discourage off-trail use. These recommendations are intended to preserve and enhance Sign Hill as a community SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 12 resource, and would not be expected to result in adverse changes to the historic sign. 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. Construction of recreation facilities could have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. However, General Plan Policy 7.5-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 are uncovered. In addition, Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered that requires consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission 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 changes and additions to integrate the proposed PRMP into the City’s long-range planning document. The amendments do not include any changes that could directly impact cultural resources. This impact would be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a–e) Less Than Significant Impact 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 changes and additions to integrate the proposed CAP and PMP into the City’s long-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 hazards associated with seismic activity, soil instability or soil erosion. The design-controllable aspects of protection from seismic ground motion and soil or slope instability are governed by existing regulations of the State of California (California Building 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 to less than significant levels. Compliance with these regulations is required, not optional. Compliance must be demonstrated by a project applicant to have been incorporated in the project’s design before permits for 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 prevent continuing erosion, and thus would have a positive impact on soil erosion. Ground disturbance during construction of facilities associated with the PRMP would have the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, existing state law and General Plan SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 14 Policy 7.2-I-1 require future development projects to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) statewide General Construction permit. The 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 pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented on the site both during and post-construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 provides further protection from erosion with 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a–b) No Impact The goals, policies, and programs of the PRMP are in compliance with the California Air Resource Board’s (ARB) Scoping Plan and ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, which are designed to implement the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions required by AB 32 and SB 375. SB 375 requires each of California’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) containing land use, housing, and transportation strategies that would allow the region to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Plan Bay Area is the SCS and Regional Transportation Plan developed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region by ABAG and the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). Plan Bay Area establishes Priority Conservation Areas to support habitat, agriculture, recreation and other ecological functions. The PCA program was updated in 2014 to recognize the importance of urban greening and regional recreation by designating Urban Greening and Regional Recreation categories for PCA qualification. Plan Bay Area also targets encouragement of active (non-motorized) transportation. The PRMP recommends pursuit of designation of Sign Hill as a Priority Conservation Area, to protect this open space that sequesters carbon and removes greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. The PRMP also contains a goal (Goal 11) and corresponding recommendations to 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. Future projects will also be subject to environmental review to ensure that any interim or adopted project-level greenhouse gas emissions threshold is not exceeded or is mitigated, and to ensure compliance with the Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 15 Additionally, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2014 pursuant to the BAAQMD requirements for a “qualified” GHG reduction plan to meet GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035. Citywide GHG emissions and reductions are addressed in the Climate Action Plan, and are consistent with the statewide reduction goals of AB 32. Potential recreation facility projects implementing the PRMP would also be evaluated for their consistency with the Climate Action Plan Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 16 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a–c) Less Than Significant Impact 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 that would result in the permanent installation of hazardous materials that could be released by accident or released 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 activities under the PRMP could involve the limited use of hazardous materials during construction and operation (i.e., fuels, solvents, pesticides, etc.). The amount of materials used would be small, so the Project 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 limited to, Titles 8 and 22 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, 22, and 26 of the CCR, and their 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 and 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) Less Than Significant Impact 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 involve 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, there are numerous hazardous materials release sites in the City. Because specific improvement projects are not known at this 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 June 2015 17 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., whether further evaluation or cleanup action is required or if the case is closed). If improvements would occur on a listed hazardous materials site, the project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, 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) Less Than Significant Impact The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) jurisdiction. 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 are required and the ALUC must review proposed land use policy actions and 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 be located within Area B of the airport’s Land Use Compatibility Plan, they would be required to comply with any applicable safety and compatibility policies of the Land Use Compatibility Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions to 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 International Airport, as well as compliance with the airport’s Land Use Compatibility Plan, would minimize potential hazards related to airport operations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. f) No Impact There are no private airstrips in the City. There would be no impact. g) Less Than Significant Impact 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 interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Further, all future improvement projects could be subject to further CEQA analysis of project- specific impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. h) No Impact 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 June 2015 18 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 19 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a, f) Less Than Significant Impact 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 used in landscaped areas. Any future construction would be required to comply with applicable policies related to hydrology and water quality issues, including the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which requires compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction runoff and long-term urban runoff. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and 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 water quality degradation. As discussed above, ground disturbance during construction of facilities associated with the 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 System (NPDES) statewide General Construction permit. The 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 pollution prevention 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 redevelopment areas. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 provides further protection from erosion with 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. b) Less Than Significant Impact 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 June 2015 20 development that would have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or 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 and 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 impacts to groundwater. This impact would be less than significant. c–e) Less Than Significant Impact 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 implementing 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 system capacity, 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 and additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Continued implementation of City development standards would minimize impacts related to surface runoff and the City’s drainage system. This impact would be less than significant. g) No Impact The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing. There would be no impact. h) Less Than Significant Impact 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 improvements cannot be determined. Should improvements be proposed for development within a special flood hazard area, they would require issuance of a development permit by the City and would be subject to the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the City’s Municipal Code, which is intended to promote the public safety and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. This impact would be less than significant. i,j) Less Than Significant Impact 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 or other 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 mudflow. This impact would be less than significant. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 21 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a–c) No Impact The proposed PRMP does not propose any changes to existing land use designations or zoning and anticipates that land uses will be consistent with the designations established by the City’s 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 provide common open space and recreational 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 conflicts with the City’s General Plan, zoning ordinance, 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 the 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 City (see General Plan Figure 7-2). 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 Conservation Plan (NCCP). Title 20 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the City’s guidelines to require that construction of projects is consistent with the City’s habitat conservation plan, and 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 substantially affect special-status species. The PRMP contains as an Appendix a Biological Resources Assessment prepared in March 2015 which contains recommendations for protection and preservation of the Sign Hill area, compliant with the HCP. Furthermore, all future improvement projects that would implement the PRMP would be subject to further CEQA SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 22 analysis of project-specific impacts. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and consultation with applicable state and federal wildlife agencies would ensure no conflicts with the City’s adopted habitat conservation plans. There would be no impact. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a–b) 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 3098 list operating within the City of 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 recovery sites. As the PRMP’s conceptual plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these 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 and 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 the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, there would be no impact. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 23 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? a–c) Less than significant 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 types of 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 noise. 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) Less than significant 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 June 2015 24 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 types of 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 Section 8.32, which regulate 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) Less than significant Impact The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) jurisdiction. 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 indirectly, result in the construction of any residential uses. Future implementation actions could result in construction of facilities that would require on-site employees. However, these future uses would be subject to the policy provisions contained in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, which contain specific noise 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 25 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 types of improvements in the future. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions 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 types of 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 26 facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed PRMP would not increase population or the demand for park facilities. Recommended improvements to existing parks could increase usage. The intent is that more residents and employees would use park facilities, however, increased use is not projected to degrade the infrastructure. Goal 5 of the PRMP states that South San Francisco’s parks and facilities should be regularly maintained to the highest standard, and the 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 throughout the City. Provision 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 facilities to required standards, or add new facilities to underserved areas, thereby supporting local residents and employees with proximate, high- quality recreational opportunities. Temporary impacts due to construction activities have been addressed in preceding sections, therefore impacts related to provision of parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 27 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 performance of the circulation system. The PRMP Goal 2, that every South San Francisco resident should be within a 5-minute walk of a park, trail or open space, supports the General Plan’s Guiding Policy 4.2-G-8 to strive reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. Future implementation of a PRMP recommendation which results in an 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 provide traffic improvements to reduce significant SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 28 impacts, unless the City determines that there are considerations, such as social, economic, or other benefits from a project that override the project’s contribution to adverse traffic impacts. There would be no impact. c) No Impact The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport, and largely within the boundaries of the airport’s Land Use 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 future implementing actions would also be required to comply with the safety and compatibility policies of the airport’s 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 efficient access to transportation resources. No 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 not result in impacts on emergency access. There 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 Master Plans, as well as the Climate Action Plan, all of which identify operational standards for multi-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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 29 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a-c, e-g) No Impact The proposed PRMP is located within an urbanized are currently served by existing utilities and utility infrastructure. Existing utilities and service systems have adequate capacity to serve the City of South San 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 generally good condition. The Water Quality Control Plant is jointly owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. It treats all wastewater generated within the two cities and has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and some wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The General Plan EIR indicated that major wastewater treatment facilities were adequate, or would be improved in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth. The proposed PRMP does not grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use 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 improvements in the 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 Ordinance, Municipal Code, and RWQCB. 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 June 2015 30 d) Less Than Significant Impact The California Water Service Company (CWSC), which purchases most of its water supply from the San Francisco Water Department, provides water service to the City of South San Francisco. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of I-280. The CWSC has water supplies and plans for conveyance infrastructure adequate to meet the service demand projections of its service area, which includes the City of South San 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 include 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 parks and facilities to increase water conservation, 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 June 2015 31 a) Less Than Significant Impact As described in Section IV, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on biological resources, and future implementing actions would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations that protect such resources, including the City’s two 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 plant and 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 actions would be subject to General Plan policies and existing state regulations that protect such resources. Continued 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 of project- specific impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 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 above, and thus would be less than cumulatively considerable. c) Less Than Significant Impact As described in the sections above, the proposed Project will not have significant environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study June 2015 32 REFERENCES The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis:  BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011.  California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, 2015.  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 Francisco, 1999 and amendments through 2015.  City of South San Francisco General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. City of South San Francisco, 1999.  City of South San Francisco Municipal Code.  Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2012.  DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2015. Envirostor database. Accessed 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 of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. 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