The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSSF-2013 CAP and PMP Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Neg Dec � i � � i i i � � i � � i i � � i � �� f f/% � r ,, � , �, �� °�J i, j �� 6,�n, �1` �, E, %r r 0 %;F��d� �''M ,� �� r� l ,� �' % > r �, �� CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN DRAFT I N ITIAL STU DY AN D NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared for: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Prepared by: PMC 500 12TH STREET, SUITE 250 OAKLAND, CA 94607 NOVEMBER 2013 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Environmental Checklist Form.........................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription............................................................................................................................................1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: ...............................................................................................7 Determination: (To be completed by the lead agency)..........................................................................8 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: ..........................................................................................................9 I. Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................11 II. Agriculture Resources.......................................................................................................................12 III. Air Quality............................................................................................................................................13 IV. Biological Resources .........................................................................................................................17 V. Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................19 VI. Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................................21 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............................................................................................................24 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................25 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality.........................................................................................................28 X. Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................32 XI. Mineral Resources..............................................................................................................................34 XII. Noise.....................................................................................................................................................35 XIII. Population and Housing...................................................................................................................37 XIV. Public Services....................................................................................................................................38 XV. Recreation ..........................................................................................................................................39 XVI. Transportation/Traffic........................................................................................................................40 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................................42 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................................44 References........................................................................................................................................................46 FIGURES Figure1 Project Vicinity...................................................................................................................................3 TABLES Table 1 GHG Emission Reduction Summary..............................................................................................24 City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan 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: Catherine Barber, 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 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 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 the adoption and implementation of the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) as well as proposed amendments to the City's General Plan. Project components are described below. This Initial Study (IS) provides programmatic-level analysis of the proposed plans. Although the CAP and PMP are separate plans, they have been prepared simultaneously by the City using City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY joint grant funding. Therefore, the CAP and PMP are both analyzed in this IS. Neither the CAP nor the PMP includes 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. Climate Action Plan The proposed CAP provides goals, policies, and actions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, adapt to climate change, and support the goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375. The CAP is intended to simplify and streamline the development review process for eligible projects by following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and meeting the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) expectations for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. The CAP includes a scientific and regulatory framework, GHG emissions inventory, GHG reduction strategy, efforts to adapt and become more resilient to climate change, and implementation measures. The latter three chapters of the CAP provide goals, measures, and actions to implement the CAP. The goals of the CAP are listed below. • Goal LUT1: Reduce Emissions from Transportation • Goal LUT2: Improve Vehicle Efficiency • Goal EE1: Increase Building Energy Efficiency • Goal EE2: Increase Alternative Energy Options • Goal W 1: Reduce Waste Disposal Rates and Volumes • Goal WE1: Conserve Water Pedestrian Master Plan The proposed PMP is a citywide plan that guides the implementation of pedestrian programs and facility improvements in order to promote and encourage walking, improve and maintain pedestrian safety and access, and identify and pursue funding sources for the construction of needed pedestrian facilities throughout the City. The PMP provides a general discussion of pedestrian facility needs for special groups of the population and for certain areas of the City. Walking audits were conducted in various neighborhoods and on a range of street types to identify recommended pedestrian improvements. The recommended improvements include recurring, citywide needs (i.e., missing sidewalks, intersection crossing treatments, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access, speed reduction measures, and linear barriers) as well as site-specific recommendations that fall into five general categories: (1) construction of pedestrian right-of-way, (2) traffic control measures, (3) striping, (4) signage, and (5) others, including enforcement and amenities. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 2 G 0 F.,l r, / 6 t f I . lly1 V ��adwdY ' 1ti'D � � a J.4 � � � 0"arh4 1,10,00,10plp�a^,wraor2r��u�r�waJ�a�1 �'„ � ,r ,rrrrj S a ni r ” a Oh ak � ,' n cl's crosl � ffffff N� - South San Franc sco 9Sn Mate Co t rrII rg ,�� n � � enrq ➢J1V��!VPr/ � 1,, �� a� Ii fk �J�j �wwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ��'�r�a ��i L or eri zo " S 1� �S air All Sco South San Francisco f '�mu7MW, WW act i � 1y mm NCO ,�7p, Caro � � � an r tJI �i�D�r�✓� ae " / �� , aroir game �a rl fiitla o IPli I � ° �OJ �� at r F� ' t� f"Ii+ly'tVf6r%id rN �, �m��yrrN Ufa, ,o;ti"p"p�,at��,Cwrsela, � Reldwood S Ill or 0 I n l r co w NIA / "or& , , H Granada �tPIl��(y111r��"'7��InN/(ly Car os „P/lll��brW o a �o r pry ` "tai�l��rUll��r✓ lr«�l hl t 7mil", P4�ai A Ito tt k a y Ott oo�� y ;, �k efo A't`h er bD ��e+iiiya 1 enlo Legend P fit I 1f" r � Park �riir rrrnf �, 0 Project Area tt 1 F Service Layer Credits:Sou6 e Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS, Intermap, k1 1 111114 ��Y i.s o i.s Figure 1 M® N Project Vicinity A., SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY The PMP provides concept plans to address the site-specific recommendations for a number of priority locations identified as part of the walking audits. These recommendations are intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in other areas in South San Francisco with similar conditions. Therefore, although the concept plans identify recommended improvements for specific locations, the recommendations for those sites are not binding on the City. The areas identified in the concept plans include: • Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (various locations based on a priority ranking system) • Neighborhood Retail Corridor Improvements (Linden Avenue corridor) • BART Station and El Camino High School Access Improvements (Mission Road corridor) • Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements (Sunshine Gardens and Spruce Avenue) • Complete Streets/Gateway Improvements (South Spruce Avenue) • Centennial Way Access Improvements (Centennial Way Trail through Chestnut Avenue crossing) • Prototypical Arterial Intersection Improvements (Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard) The PMP also provides a policy framework including seven overarching goals designed to support implementation of the long-term vision for walking in the City over the next 10 years, as well as objectives for gauging progress in achieving the goals and policies for implementing the goals. The proposed goals of the PMP are listed below. • Goal 1: Promote and Encourage Walking • Goal 2: Improve Pedestrian Safety • Goal 3: Improve Pedestrian Access • Goal 4: Identify and Pursue Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain Pedestrian Facilities • Goal 5: Maintain Pedestrian Facilities • Goal 6: Periodically Review the Pedestrian Master Plan and Keep It Relevant • Goal 7: Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed The PMP provides a method for prioritizing local pedestrian improvement projects. The resulting rankings of the identified improvement projects are provided, along with estimated costs for each. The PMP describes past and potential future funding sources and provides steps toward implementation of the PMP. The PMP also identifies a range of support programs and activities that have been effective in other jurisdictions that the City may consider implementing. Finally, the PMP provides detailed design guidelines for future pedestrian improvements. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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 CAP reduction measures and actions are based. The General Plan Amendments would include edits and additions to existing text and policies in various sections of the Transportation Element and the Air Quality section of the Open Space and Conservation Element. Together, these amendments integrate the objectives of the CAP and the PMP 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: The Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan 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. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 6 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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 ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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 El 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 E] 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. 1152 Sig store D to Susy Kalkin Chief Planner Printed name Title Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South Son Francisco Initial Study November 2013 8 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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. 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. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 10 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 CAP is a policy-level document; 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 CAP 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 CAP would have no direct impact on visual resources, but future activities could change community aesthetics. However, any future development project that would implement CAP 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. Similarly, although the PMP provides concept plans for a number of priority locations in the City, the plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. Because specific improvement projects are not currently known, the extent to which improvements envisioned in the PMP could result in changes in character cannot be precisely described at this time. However, improvements for the PMP would be located in currently developed areas, such as existing residential neighborhoods and transit centers, to improve safety for pedestrians and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. Because the improvements would occur in currently developed areas and would include surface improvements (e.g., sidewalks) and landscaping, there would not be a substantial negative change to the character of the City. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 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. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 12 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 CAP 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. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility 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 CAP and PMP. Future implementing actions of the CAP and PMP 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. In fact, the proposed CAP is intended to reduce GHG emissions generated within the City to contribute to global efforts to reduce the effects of City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY climate change by supporting the provision of new and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Measure 1.1), expanded public and private transit programs (Measure 1.2), and the use of alternative-fuel vehicles (Measure 2.1), as well as by promoting higher-density and transit- oriented development (Measure 1.3), increased energy efficiency (Measures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 7.1), and the installation of alternative energy facilities (Measure 4.1). The proposed PMP would be used, in part, to implement CAP Measure 1.1 by integrating pedestrian planning into the City's planning review process (Policy 1.1), expanding South San Francisco's existing pedestrian network and improving pedestrian access (Policy 3.1), and requiring pedestrian facilities and amenities at key locations and as part of new development projects (Policies 3.2, 3.3). In addition to reducing GHGs, each of these measures and policies 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 As described above, the proposed CAP, PMP, and General Plan Amendments do not directly propose or grant any entitlements for development or change any existing land use designations. However, future implementing actions could include the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure, and alternative energy facilities. The construction of these improvements and facilities would result in short-term construction emissions of ozone- precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]) and emissions of particulate matter (PM). Emissions of ozone precursors would result from the operation of on- road and off-road motorized vehicles and equipment. Emissions of airborne PM are largely associated with ground-disturbing activities, such as those occurring during site preparation. The quantity of daily emissions, particularly ROG and NOX emissions, generated by construction equipment used to implement CAP and PMP 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 CAP and PMP 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 Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 14 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 The City shall require that projects implementing CAP or PMP 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 City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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 BAAQM D-recomm ended 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 CAP, PMP, and General Plan Amendments contain measures that support alternative transportation, energy efficiency, and alternative fuels and energy sources. These measures 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 The proposed CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future and would not grant any entitlements for development at this time. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. Future implementing actions of the CAP and PMP would include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure, and alternative energy facilities, which would not create objectionable odors. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 16 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? fl 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 CAP 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 CAP 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 CAP would have no direct impact on City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY biological resources, but could have indirect impacts on such resources through future activities to implement the CAP. Specifically, CAP Measure 1.1 would support implementation of plans to expand pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Measure 2.1 would support alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure, and Measure 4.1 would promote the installation of alternative energy facilities such as solar photovoltaic cells in the City. Construction of these facilities would have the potential to adversely affect biological resources. However, any future development project that would implement CAP measures and actions 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 development projects would also be subject to project- specific CEQA analysis of project-level impacts. Similarly, although the PMP provides concept plans for a number of priority locations in the City, the plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. The PMP does not include any proposals for development projects, grant any entitlements for development, or change any land use designations or zoning within the City and would have no direct impact on biological resources. As described above, all future development projects that would implement the proposed PMP would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations that protect biological resources, including the City's habitat management plans as well as further CEQA analysis of project-level impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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) 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 CAP, PMP, and General Plan Amendments would have no direct impact on biological resources. Measure 1.1 of the CAP would support implementation of plans to expand pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the City. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides general recommendations for improvements to pedestrian facilities that could be implemented at various locations throughout the City. Neither the CAP nor the PMP identifies 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 CAP or PMP 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. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 18 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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, b, 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 CAP 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 CAP 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 CAP would have no direct impact on cultural resources, but future activities could adversely affect these resources. Measure 1.1 would support implementation of plans to expand pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Measure 2.1 would support alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure, and Measure 4.1 would promote the installation of alternative energy facilities such as solar photovoltaic in the City. Construction of these facilities would have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. However, General Plan Policy 7.5-1-4 requires a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources, and Policy 7.5-1-5 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 CAP measures and actions would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Similarly, although the PMP provides concept plans for a number of priority locations in the City, the plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. Because specific improvement projects are not currently known, the extent to which improvements envisioned in the PMP could result in adverse changes to known historical or archaeological resources cannot be precisely described at this City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY time. However, as described above, General Plan Policies 7.5-1-4 and 7.5-1-5 and Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code outline protocol to ensure protection of cultural resources, including human remains. In addition, all future development projects that would implement PMP policies and measures 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 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 directly impact cultural resources. This impact would be less than significant. 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 CAP, PMP, and General Plan Amendments would have no direct impact on cultural resources, including paleontological resources. However, improvements to implement the CAP and PMP could adversely affect these resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 If paleontological resources are encountered during future grading or excavation activities associated with CAP- or PMP-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 Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 20 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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). The proposed CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. Further, the CAP does not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning and anticipates that land uses will be consistent with the designations City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY established by the City's General Plan. As a policy document, the CAP 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 CAP would not include any habitable structures. Similarly, although the PMP provides concept plans for a number of priority locations in the City, the plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. The PMP does not include any proposals for development projects or grant any entitlements for development in the City and would not directly expose people or structures to seismic hazards. Furthermore, like the CAP, future projects implementing the PMP 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 or soil instability. 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 CAP 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 CAP would not directly result in any soil erosion. However, future activities involving land clearing, grading, and/or excavations could potentially result in soil erosion. CAP Measure 1.1 would support implementation of plans to expand pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Measure 2.1 would support alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure, and Measure 4.1 would promote the installation of alternative energy facilities, such as solar photovoltaic, in the City. The proposed PMP is a conceptual planning document that does not include any proposals for development projects, grant any entitlements for development, or change any land use designations or zoning in the City. The PMP does provide general recommendations for improvements to pedestrian facilities which could be implemented at various locations throughout the City in the future. 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 soil erosion. This impact would be less than significant. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 22 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Ground disturbance during construction of facilities associated with the CAP or PMP would have the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, existing state law and General Plan Policy 7.2-1-1 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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) Less Than Significant Impact According to the CAP, unmitigated GHG emissions in the City would total 491,310 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2020, an 11 percent increase over baseline (2005) emissions. Consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the City has identified a 15 percent community reduction target below baseline (2005) emissions by 2020. As discussed in the CAP, implementation of existing state reduction programs (i.e., AB 1493 Vehicle Standards, Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards) is projected to reduce emissions by 69,770 MTCO2e by 2020, a 5 percent reduction from baseline (2005) levels. Implementation of existing local programs and the measures and actions contained in the proposed CAP are projected to result in a further emissions reduction of 46,270 MTCO2e by 2020, a 10 percent reduction from baseline (2005) levels. These projected emissions reductions are summarized in Table 1. The proposed CAP measures and actions would achieve these reductions by reducing emissions from transportation, improving vehicle efficiency, increasing building energy efficiency, increasing alternative energy operations, reducing waste disposal rates and volumes, and conserving water. TABLE 1 GHG EMISSION REDUCTION SUMMARY Percentage Percentage 2005 2020 Reduction 2035 Reduction from Baseline from Baseline Business as Usual Emissions' 442,400 491,310 11% 550,540 24% State Reduction Efforts -69,770 -104,590 Local Reduction Efforts -10,070 -13,020 CAP Reduction Efforts -36,200 -73,930 Total Emissions Reductions -116,040 -15% -191,540 -19% The proposed Project would be consistent with AB 32 and the AB 32 Scoping Plan, as the GHG inventory for South San Francisco would achieve a 15 percent reduction below baseline (2005) levels as required under the provisions of AB 32. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with state goals to reduce GHG emissions, and the Project's contribution to this impact is less than cumulatively considerable. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 24 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 The proposed CAP 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 City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY accidental release of hazardous materials or otherwise expose the public to hazardous substances. Similarly, although the PMP provides concept plans for a number of priority locations in the City, the plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. However, future activities under the CAP or PMP 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 CAP and PMP. 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 CAP and PMP 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 bicycle and pedestrian improvements, alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure, and alternative energy 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 CAP and PMP 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) Less Than Significant 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. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 26 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY The proposed CAP 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 CAP would not directly result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with airport operations. Implementation of the CAP would not result in the construction of any habitable structures, and any improvements developed to implement the CAP would be required to comply with the safety and compatibility policies of the airport's Land Use Compatibility Plan. Similarly, the PMP 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. Like the CAP, future activities of the PMP would not include habitable structures, and any improvement projects would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions such as Policy 8.7-1-1, 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. g) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed CAP and PMP are policy documents that do not include any development proposals or changes to existing land use designations. Implementation actions that implement the policies of the CAP and PMP 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 CAP and PMP do not include improvements that would expose people or structures to significant risk of wildland fires. There would be no impact. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ fl ows? 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 28 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS a, f) Less Than Significant Impact The CAP 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 CAP 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 CAP 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. Similarly, the PMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. Therefore, the PMP would have no direct impact on water quality. However, future activities could introduce pollutants into stormwater runoff, potentially degrading downstream water quality. Construction of future pedestrian facilities could result in soil erosion and sedimentation as well as pollutants entering stormwater runoff during rain events. In addition, operation of these facilities could also introduce limited amounts of pollutants into stormwater runoff, such as pesticides used in landscaped areas. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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 CAP or PMP would have the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, existing state law and General Plan Policy 7.2-1-1 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 (1-280), 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 City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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 1-280. The CAP 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. The CAP includes Goal WE1 to conserve water, because water consumption requires energy to pump, treat, distribute, collect, and discharge water as it is used by the community. CAP Measure 6.1 is estimated to save 1.03 billion gallons annually (approximately 2.8 mgd). CAP Measure 6.2, which would provide for alternative sources for irrigation water,would further reduce potable water demand. 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 pedestrian 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. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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 CAP 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 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Similarly, the PMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. Improvements to implement the CAP could alter drainage patterns and runoff rates, resulting in flooding and/or exceedance of the drainage system capacity. Improvements associated with the PMP would be located in currently developed areas, such as existing residential neighborhoods and transit centers, to improve safety for pedestrians and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. Any new facilities would be required to be designed to accommodate stormwater collection and conveyance into approved facilities. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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,h) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing. Future implementing actions 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 Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 30 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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 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. This impact would be less than significant. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 CAP 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 CAP would create barriers that could divide the community. Future development projects that would implement the PMP would include new and expanded pedestrian facilities that would provide safer and more convenient connections within and between areas of the City and would not divide the community. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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. b) No Impact The proposed CAP and PMP are policy-level documents that do 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 CAP and PMP. 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 CAP, PMP, and General Plan Amendments would have no direct impact on biological resources. Measure 1.1 of the CAP would support implementation of Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 32 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY plans to expand pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the City. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides general recommendations for improvements to pedestrian facilities that could be implemented at various locations throughout the City. Neither the CAP nor the PMP identifies 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 7.1-1-1 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 CAP or PMP 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 CAP 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. Similarly, the PMP provides concept plans for a number of priority locations in the City, which are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. Therefore, the PMP would have no direct impact on mineral resources or mineral recovery sites. Further, these improvements would be constructed in an urbanized area that contains no known significant mineral resources or resource recovery sites. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 34 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI I. 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 CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future. As policy documents, the CAP and PMP would have no direct impacts related to noise, but future implementing actions could result in the generation of noise. The CAP supports expansion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure, and installation of alternative energy facilities such as solar photovoltaic cells in the City. Similarly, the PMP provides guidance for the development of pedestrian facility improvements throughout the City. The operation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and solar photovoltaic units would not generate significant noise. However, the operation of alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure and alternative energy facilities could create new permanent sources of noise. To the extent that these could be considered noise generators, General Plan Policy 9-1-8 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY d) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future. Construction of facilities associated with the CAP and PMP 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 2013), 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. CAP Measures 2.1 and 4.1 could result in the future construction of uses 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. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 36 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility 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 CAP and PMP. 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) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development. The facilities associated with CAP implementation are generally constructed as part of existing developments (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations, retrofits to existing residential and nonresidential structures) or are encouraged as part of new developments (e.g., encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards or require new construction to meet certain minimum standards for energy efficiency). The CAP also promotes the continuation of zoning that allows appropriate small and medium-sized alternative energy installations. However, as the CAP does not change zoning, this would not change from the existing conditions, and the CAP would not displace housing or people or require the construction of housing elsewhere. The proposed PMP includes concept plans for pedestrian facility improvements such as missing sidewalks, intersection crossing treatments, ADA access, speed reduction measures, and linear barriers. Future actions would not require the demolition of existing housing or construction of housing elsewhere. This impact would be less than significant. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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 CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility 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 CAP and PMP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on public services. Future implementing actions of the CAP and PMP would not include any residential uses or employment centers that would generate demand for public services.Therefore, there would be no impact. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 38 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 CAP and PMP would not increase population or the demand for park facilities. With no changes to residential or nonresidential uses in the City, the CAP and PMP 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 The purpose of the proposed CAP is to reduce GHG emissions, in part through reducing emissions from transportation. CAP measures and actions support the provision of new and expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Measure 1.1) and public and private transit programs (Measure 1.2), as well as encourage higher-density and transit-oriented development (Measure 1.3). The proposed PMP is intended to promote and encourage walking in the City, primarily by improving pedestrian safety and access and constructing and maintaining pedestrian facilities. Implementation of these policy provisions would result in a reduction of vehicle trips in the City. CAP Measure 2.1 supports expansion of alternative-fuel vehicle use in the City through the provision of biofuels, electric vehicle charging stations, and designated parking spaces for Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 40 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY electric and other low-emission vehicles. While these policies would support the use of vehicles, they would be expected to shift existing vehicle trips from one fuel type to another and not result in an overall increase in vehicle trips. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. C) No Impact The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport. Neither the CAP nor the PMP 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 (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 CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future. Future improvements developed to implement the CAP and PMP would include development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure and alternative energy facilities. These future bicycle and pedestrian facilities 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 proposed Project includes the adoption of plans by the City pertaining to public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, as well as General Plan Amendments to create consistency between the proposed plans and the City's General Plan. In addition, the policy provisions contained in these plans are intended to increase the performance and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City.There would be no impact. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 CAP does not include any site-specific designs or proposals, grant any entitlements for development, or propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. Similarly, the proposed PMP provides only concept plans for pedestrian facility 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 CAP and PMP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct impact on public utilities. Future implementing actions of the CAP and PMP would not include any residential uses or employment centers that would generate demand for public services.Therefore, there would be no impact. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 42 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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 (1-280), 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 1-280. The CAP 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. The CAP includes Goal WE1 to conserve water, because water consumption requires energy to pump, treat, distribute, collect, and discharge water as it is used by the community. CAP Measure 6.1 is estimated to save 1.03 billion gallons annually (approximately 2.8 mgd). CAP Measure 6.2, which would provide for alternative sources for irrigation water,would further reduce potable water demand. 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 pedestrian 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. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the proposed CAP and PMP. 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. Future implementing actions of the CAP and PMP would not increase water demand in the City. This impact would be less than significant. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 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 Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 44 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan November 2013 Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 SSF CAP/PMP INITIAL STUDY 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. 2013b. City of South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2013. Envirostor database. Accessed September 26.,http:ZZwww.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan City of South San Francisco Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2013 46 6, n, r i