The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Meeting 11-20-14 (Reso 2752-2014) - CEQA - Exhibit A Complete Streets GPA IS-MND DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PREPARED BY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 315 MAPLE AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 OCTOBER 14, 2014 SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendments October 2014 Initial Study i TABLE OF CONTENTS Environmental Checklist Form ......................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................................ 3 Determination .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 5 I. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................. 7 II. Agriculture Resources ......................................................................................................................... 8 III. Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 9 IV. Biological Resources. ........................................................................................................................ 13 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 15 VI. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 17 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................................. 19 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 20 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 23 X. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................... 26 XI. Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................................. 28 XII. Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................................... 31 XIV. Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 32 XV. Recreation .......................................................................................................................................... 33 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 34 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................................. 36 XVIII. Mandatory Findings Of Significance ............................................................................................. 38 References........................................................................................................................................................ 40 SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendments October 2014 Initial Study 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment 2. Lead agency name and address: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 3. Contact person and phone number: Billy Gross, Senior Planner 650-877-8535 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 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 Economic and Community Development Department, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 6. General Plan designation: Not applicable; Project is citywide 7. Zoning: Not applicable; Project is citywide 8. Description of Project: PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION The proposed Project consists of an update to the South San Francisco General Plan’s Circulation Element. The proposed update includes a revision of goals, principles, and policies addressing the concept of “Complete Streets”. Complete Streets provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 2 categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families. Project components are described below. This Initial Study (IS) provides programmatic-level analysis of the proposed amendment. The Complete Streets policies do 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. Complete Streets General Plan Amendments The proposed Complete Streets General Plan Amendments (GPA) provide recommended policy updates to the City of South San Francisco’s existing General Plan, including goals and policies. The Complete Streets GPA would include edits and additions to existing text and policies in various sections of the Transportation Element. Together, these amendments integrate the objectives of the Complete Streets GPA into the City’s long-term planning framework. The amendments provide a policy framework designed to support implementation of Complete Streets concepts, including integrating Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street design and construction projects and to make Complete Streets practices a routine part of South San Francisco’s everyday operations. 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: The Complete Streets policies would be implemented citywide. 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 COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & 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 SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 4 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the lead agency) 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 Susy Kalkin Printed name Chief Planner___________ Title SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 6 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 7 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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 that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–d) Less Than Significant Impact The Complete Streets General Plan Amendment (GPA) is a policy-level amendment; it does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment or adversely affect visual resources. The Complete Streets GPA does not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning and anticipates that land uses will be consistent with the designations established by the General Plan Land Use Element. As a policy document, the Complete Streets GPA would have no direct impact on visual resources, but future activities could change community aesthetics. Improvements related to Complete Streets policies would be located in currently developed areas and would generally rely on the use of existing lighting sources. Any future development project that would implement Complete Streets measures and actions would be subject to applicable City regulations and requirements, as well as be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and the South San Francisco Zoning Regulations would manage the appearance of structural development in the City, including scenic corridors, to ensure impacts to scenic vistas and the existing visual character of the City would be less than significant. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 8 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (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 forestland or conversion of forestland 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 nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–e) No Impact 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 Complete Streets GPA 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. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 9 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 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 in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a) Less Than Significant 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 Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals or grant any entitlements for development and does not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. The proposed Complete Streets GPA is a key strategy within the City’s Climate Action Plan intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Similarly, the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) and Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) provide concept plans for pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 10 Future implementing actions of the Complete Streets GPA 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. Implementation of the Complete Streets GPA in conjunction with the CAP, PMP and BMP would assist in reducing GHGs and would help to reduce criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s adopted air quality plans, and this impact would be less than significant. b–d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction Emissions 405.001 2332082.1 (2:57 PM) The quantity of daily emissions, particularly ROG and NOx emissions, generated by construction equipment used to implement Complete Streets GPA measures would depend on the number of vehicles used and the hours of operation. The significance of PM emissions would vary widely and would depend on a number of factors, including the size of the disturbance area and whether excavations or material transport would be necessary. Although individual improvements may not generate significant short-term emissions, it is possible that several improvements would be under construction simultaneously in the City and would generate cumulative construction emissions that could affect air quality. Future actions implementing proposed Complete Streets GPA measures and policies would include construction activities that would result in short-term construction emissions. Localized concentrations of construction-generated emissions can adversely impact nearby sensitive land uses. These emissions could include diesel PM, which was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the California Air Resources Board in 1998. Diesel PM emissions could be generated by off-road diesel equipment during site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emissions levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. Cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically based on calculations over a 70-year period of exposure. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. For these reasons, diesel PM generated by construction activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to create conditions where the probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in 1 million for nearby receptors. To assist local jurisdictions in the analysis of potential health risks associated with short-term construction projects, the BAAQMD has developed screening criteria that can be applied at the project level (BAAQMD 2011). The BAAQMD Construction Risk Calculator model provides distances from a construction site, based on user-provided project data, where the risk impacts are estimated to be less than significant; sensitive receptors located within these distances would be considered to have potentially significant risk impacts from construction. The BAAQMD considers this screening procedure an environmentally conservative guidance. Quantification of air quality impacts from short-term, temporary construction activities is not possible due to project-level variability and uncertainties related to future individual projects. However, all construction projects can produce ozone precursors, diesel PM, and nuisance dust emissions. The BAAQMD has identified basic construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-generated air pollutants. This impact would be less than significant with incorporation of the following mitigation measures. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 11 Mitigation Measures AQ-1 The City shall require that projects implementing Complete Streets measures are analyzed as part of project review in accordance with BAAQMD-recommended methodologies and significance thresholds and shall require that all recommended mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce short-term construction emissions attributable to individual measures. Such mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:  Water all active construction areas at least twice daily as required.  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all truck to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.  Sweep daily, as required, all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.  Sweep streets daily as required if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.  Reduce unnecessary idling of truck equipment in proximity to sensitive receptors (i.e., idle time of 5 minutes or less).  Where possible, use newer, cleaner-burning diesel-powered construction equipment.  Properly maintain construction equipment per manufacturer specifications.  Designate a disturbance coordinator responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts from construction are properly implemented. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of South San Francisco Planning Division In addition, each future implementing action would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project- specific impacts. At the time of specific project-level environment review, the City will ensure compliance with BAAQMD-recommended mitigation measures such as those listed in mitigation measure AQ-1, as well as through the placement of conditions of approval on individual projects, to reduce impacts. Implementation of the above measures would substantially reduce construction- related emissions. Operational Emissions As described above, the proposed Complete Streets GPA contains measures that support alternative transportation, which would help to reduce adverse air quality effects through the reduction of fossil fuel consumption and use of private motor vehicles. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or increase criteria pollutants during operational activities. This impact would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 12 The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Future implementing actions of the Complete Streets GPA would include the construction of facilities that serve all categories of users, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which would not create objectionable odors. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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 Wildlife or US 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, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–d) Less Than Significant Impact The Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or federally protected wetlands or interfere substantially with the movement of any migratory species. The GPA SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 14 does not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning and anticipates that land uses will be consistent with the designations established by the General Plan Land Use Element. As a policy document, the GPA would have no direct impact on biological resources, but could have indirect impacts on such resources through future activities to implement the GPA. Future transportation improvement projects will require compliance with General Plan policies (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. Future development projects would also be subject to project-specific CEQA analysis of project-level impacts. Such measures would ensure impacts to biological resources in the City would be less than significant. e,f) Less Than Significant Impact 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, but some limited development is permitted. As discussed above, the proposed Complete Streets GPA would have no direct impact on biological resources. The GPA does not identify future improvements within the habitat conservation areas. However, such facilities are consistent with parkland and could be constructed in these areas in the future. 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. Furthermore, all future improvement projects that would implement the Complete Streets GPA 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. This impact would be less than significant. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 15 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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 Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 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 proposed Complete Streets GPA is a policy document that does not include proposals for development projects and would not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. Further, the GPA does not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning and anticipates that land uses will be consistent with the designations established by the City’s General Plan. As a policy document, the GPA would have no direct impact on cultural resources, but future activities could adversely affect these 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, all future development projects that would implement Complete Streets GPA measures and actions would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. This impact would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Archaeological resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and other prehistoric and historic objects and artifacts. As discussed above, the proposed Complete Streets GPA would have no direct impact on cultural resources, including archaeological resources. However, improvements to implement the Complete SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 16 Streets GPA could adversely affect these resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 If archaeological resources are encountered during future grading or excavation activities associated with Complete Streets-related activities, work shall avoid altering the resource and its stratigraphic context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated, recorded, and determined appropriate treatment of the resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in consultation with the City. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the City. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of project approval, and implemented during construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of South San Francisco Planning Division c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Paleontological resources include fossil remains, as well as fossil localities and rock or soil formations that have produced fossil material. Fossils are the remains or traces of prehistoric animals and plants. As discussed above, the proposed Complete Streets GPA would have no direct impact on cultural resources, including paleontological resources. However, improvements to implement the Complete Streets GPA could adversely affect these resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 If paleontological resources are encountered during future grading or excavation activities associated with Complete Streets-related activities, work shall avoid altering the resource and its stratigraphic context until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated, recorded, and determined appropriate treatment of the resource, in consultation with the City. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Appropriate treatment may include collecting and processing “standard” samples by a qualified paleontologist to recover microvertebrate fossils; preparing significant fossils to a reasonable point of identification; and depositing significant fossils in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage, together with an itemized inventory of the specimens. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of project approval, and implemented during construction activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of South San Francisco Planning Division SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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? 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a, c–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). SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 18 The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Further, the GPA does not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning and anticipates that land uses will be consistent with the designations established by the City’s Land Use Element. As a policy document, the GPA would not directly result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with seismic activity or soil instability. Future projects that would implement the proposed GPA would not include any habitable structures. 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. b) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include proposals for development projects, would not grant any entitlements for development, and does not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Therefore, the GPA would not directly result in any soil erosion. However, ground disturbance during construction of facilities associated with the Complete Streets GPA would have the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. 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 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. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 19 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–b) No Impact Implementation of the Complete Streets GPA in conjunction with the Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP, Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) and Climate Action Plan (CAP) would provide additional opportunities for non-vehicular methods of transportation, reducing the number of vehicle trips. Therefore, the Complete Streets GPA would indirectly reduce the City’s contribution to GHG emissions. The proposed Complete Streets GPA would be consistent with AB 32, which requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as the GPA would support the implementation of the City’s CAP, which would achieve a 15 percent reduction below baseline (2005) levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with state goals to reduce GHG emissions, and the proposed Project would have no impact on GHG emissions. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 20 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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 area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a 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? 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–c) Less Than Significant Impact SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 21 The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, 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. Any improvements developed to implement the Complete Streets GPA would be required to comply 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. Compliance with these laws would limit use of hazardous materials during construction and operation (i.e., fuels, solvents, pesticides, etc.) and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant. d) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA are policy-level documents that do not include any site-specific designs or proposals, 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 transportation facilities, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (2013) 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 Complete Streets GPA measures would be subject to future environmental review, 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,f) No Impact 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 north and west sides of the City are located within Airport Influence Area B. Within Area B, real estate disclosures are required and the Airport Land Use Commission must review proposed land use policy actions and land development proposals. There are no private airstrips in the City. The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or change any land use designations or zoning. As a policy document, the Complete Streets GPA would not directly result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with airport operations. Implementation of the Complete Streets GPA would not result in the construction of any habitable structures, and any improvements developed to implement the Complete Streets GPA would be required to comply with the safety and compatibility policies of the airport’s Land Use Compatibility Plan. 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, there would be no impact. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 22 g) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA is a policy document that does not include any development proposals or changes to existing land use designations. Implementation actions that implement the policies of the Complete Streets GPA 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, there would be no impact. h) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include improvements that would expose people or structures to significant risk of wildland fires. There would be no impact. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 23 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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 that 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 that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 24 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a, f) Less Than Significant Impact The Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. As a policy document, the Complete Streets GPA would have no direct impact on water quality, but future activities could introduce pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could potentially degrade downstream water quality. Improvements developed as part of the Complete Streets GPA implementation 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. However, future development projects would be required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards for site drainage. 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) serves the portion of the City east of Interstate 280 (I-280), which represents the majority of the City’s area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The CWSC’s current contract with the South San Francisco Water Department entitles the City to 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd). An additional 1.4 mgd can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of I-280. The Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Future improvements would include development of complete streets related facilities such as sidewalks, medians, signals, and signage with minimal water demand for irrigation of landscaped areas and little potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater 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 Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns or SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 25 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Improvements associated with the Complete Streets GPA would be located in currently developed areas, such as existing residential neighborhoods and transit centers, to improve the use of transportation facilities for all categories of users. Any new facilities would be required to be designed to accommodate stormwater collection and conveyance into approved facilities. This impact would be less than significant. g,h) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing. 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) No Impact Tsunamis, or seismically generated sea waves, are rare in California due to the lack of submarine earthquake faults. However, 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. There would be no impact. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 26 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA 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. Future development projects that would implement the Complete Streets GPA would include new and expanded pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would provide safer and more convenient connections within and between areas of the City and would not divide the community. There would be no impact. b) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA is a policy-level document that does not include any changes to existing land use designations or zoning. There would be no conflicts with the City’s General Plan, zoning ordinance, or other land use planning documents. There would be no impact. c) Less Than Significant Impact 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, but some limited development is permitted. As discussed above, the proposed Complete Streets GPA would have no direct impact on biological resources. The Complete Streets GPA does not identify future improvements within the habitat conservation areas. However, such facilities are consistent with parkland and could be constructed in these areas in the future. 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. Furthermore, all future improvement projects that would implement the Complete Streets GPA would SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 27 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. This impact would be less than significant. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 28 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a,b) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not propose improvements 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. Further, future activities would occur within the City, which is an urbanized area that contains no known significant mineral resources or resource recovery sites. Therefore, there would be no impact. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 29 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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 of 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 area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–c) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. As a policy document, the Complete Streets GPA would have no direct impacts related to noise. Future transportation improvement projects, which could include expansion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, would be subject to the policy provisions contained in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, including Policy 9-I-8 which requires the control of noise at the source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, as well as compliance with applicable existing regulations, including but not limited to South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32, Noise Regulations, which regulates noise activities within the City. Compliance with these policies and regulations would ensure this impact is less than significant. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 30 d) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Construction of facilities associated with the Complete Streets GPA could exceed noise standards. Because construction is a necessary activity in maintaining and developing a city, municipal codes frequently include special provisions related to construction noise. The South San Francisco Municipal Code includes special provisions in Section 8.32, which allows construction activities on weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 8 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if construction meets at least one of the following noise limitations:  No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible.  The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB. Compliance with the limitations of Municipal Code Section 8.3 would ensure that construction noise levels would not exceed noise limitations established by the City. This would be a less than significant impact. e,f) Less Than Significant Impact The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport. According to the Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Airport (C/CAG 2012), much of the City is located in Airport Influence Area B, within which 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. Compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that this impact would be less than significant. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 31 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Future improvements would not include the development of any new housing or employment centers that would increase the population directly or induce population. Therefore, there would be no impact. b,c) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Any physical improvements associated with these transportation improvement strategies would likely be constructed within existing or planned road rights of way. Accordingly, this would not change from the existing conditions, and the Complete Streets GPA would not displace housing or people or require the construction of housing elsewhere. There would be no impact. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 32 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. 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 following public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–e) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on public services. Future implementing actions of the Complete Streets GPA would not include any residential uses or employment centers that would generate demand for public services. Therefore, there would be no impact. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 33 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a,b) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA would not increase population or the demand for park facilities. With no changes to residential or nonresidential uses in the City, the Complete Streets GPA would not result in physical deterioration of park facilities or require new park facilities, the construction of which could cause physical environmental impacts. Therefore, there would be no impact related to parks and recreation. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 34 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a,b) Less Than Significant Impact Implementation of the Complete Streets GPA, in conjunction with the Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP), Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) and Climate Action Plan (CAP), is intended to lessen the reliance on automobiles and promote use of alternative traffic modes and by expanding the existing pedestrian and bicycle networks and providing enhanced connectivity within the community. Implementation of these policy provisions has the potential to reduce the number of vehicle trips and reduce congestion within the City. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c) No Impact SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 35 The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport. The Complete Streets GPA would not 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 (C/CAP 2012) and would not affect the location of air traffic patterns in the region. There would be no impact on air traffic patterns. d,e) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Future improvements developed to implement the Complete Streets GPA would be designed to increase safety and access and would be reviewed by the City to ensure they would not result impacts on emergency access. This impact would be less than significant. f) No Impact The Complete Streets GPA is intended to support implementation efforts related to pedestrian, bicycle, and related transit network improvements. As such, the Complete Streets GPA would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances supporting multimodal access and alternative transportation. In addition, the policy provisions are intended to increase the performance and safety of complete streets-related facilities in the City. There would be no impact. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 36 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t 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? 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? 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 that 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? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a–c, e–g) No Impact The proposed Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on public utilities. Future implementing actions of the Complete Streets GPA would not include any residential uses or employment centers that would generate demand for public services. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Less Than Significant Impact The City has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company, Peninsula District (CWSC) serves the portion of the City east of Interstate 280 (I-280), which represents the majority of the City’s area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 37 these communities. The CWSC’s current contract with the South San Francisco Water Department entitles the City to 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd). An additional 1.4 mgd can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of I-280. The Complete Streets GPA does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Future improvements would include development of facilities such as sidewalks, sidewalk bulb-outs, medians, signals, and signage with minimal water demand for irrigation of landscaped areas and little potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and the South San Francisco Zoning Regulations would minimize impacts to groundwater. Future implementing actions of the Complete Streets GPA would not increase water demand in the City. This impact would be less than significant. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 38 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, 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 that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 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. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated The impacts of the proposed Project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain areas can be expected as a result of the future implementing actions, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY City of South San Francisco Complete Streets General Plan Amendment October 2014 Initial Study 39 Project would be considered less than significant or would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study, which would also ensure that any contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Construction of future improvements would produce ozone precursors, diesel PM, and nuisance dust, which could affect human beings. Mitigation measure AQ-1 requires implementation of basic construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-generated air pollutants, which would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Therefore, with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. SSF COMPLETE STREETS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY Complete Streets General Plan Amendment City of South San Francisco Initial Study October 2014 40 REFERENCES BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County). 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. City of South San Francisco. 2013a. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. _____. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. _____. 2011. City of South San Francisco Bikeways Master Plan. _____. 2013b. City of South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2013. Envirostor database. Accessed September 26. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.