HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 88-2015 RESOLUTION NO. 88-2015
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE INITIAL
STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND15-0001) FOR THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN UPDATE (GPA15-0004).
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has prepared a Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Update ("Project"), which evaluates the existing park system facilities and conditions,
analyzes the need for new or expanded parks and facilities, identifies goals and recommendations
for improving and expanding the park and recreation system, and sets a strategy for long-term
maintenance of the park and recreation system; and
WHEREAS, the Project's proposed goals and policies require minor revisions to the
South San Francisco General Plan through a separate General Plan Amendment (GPA15-0004)
to ensure that the Project is consistent with the adopted policies contained in the South San
Francisco General Plan's Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA), the City prepared the attached Initial Study/
Negative Declaration and distributed the document to the San Mateo County Clerk, appropriate
responsible agencies and interested parties on June 11, 2015 for a 20-day public review period;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 18,
2015 to consider and evaluate the Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("Negative Declaration")
and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2015 to
take public comment and consider action on the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the Negative Declaration, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the
Negative Declaration as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of the record is the City's Planning Manager, and the Negative
Declaration and the General Plan Amendments to adopt the Project, as well as other materials
comprising the record for these proceedings, are available and may be reviewed at the offices of
the South San Francisco Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, 94080.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,
including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Negative Declaration, prepared by Gates + Associates, and all appendices thereto; all reports,
minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed June
18, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City
Council's duly noticed July 22, 2015 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of
Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Negative Declaration for the City of
South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan (attached as Exhibit A) are each
incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General
Plan, as proposed for amendment, because the land uses proposed are compatible with the goals,
policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov't Code, § 65860),
and none of the land uses will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the
goals,policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
5. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council
makes the following finding regarding the environmental impact of the Project: an initial study
was prepared for the proposed Project and a negative declaration analyzed the potential for
impacts for the Project and concludes that approval of the Project will not result in any
significant environmental impacts.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby adopts the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (ND 15-0001) for the South San Francisco
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update (GPA15-0004).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of
July, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Karyl Matsumoto, Pradeep Gupta, and Liza Normandy
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego and Mayor Richard A. Garbarino
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
//
ATTEST /
Acting City lerk
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2465373.1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
June 2015
Prepared by
Gates +Associates
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.Project title:
City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan
2.Lead agency name and address:
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco,CA 94083
3.Contact person and phone number:
Tony Rozzi,AICP—Senior Planner
650-877-8535
tony.rozzi @ssf.net
4.Project location:
The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco peninsula in San Mateo County, California.The City
is bounded on the north by Colma, Brisbane,and San Bruno Mountain State and County Park,on the west by the
City of Pacifica,on the south by San Bruno and the San Francisco International Airport,and on the east by the San
Francisco Bay.
5.Project sponsor's name and address:
City of South San Francisco
Parks and Recreation Department
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco,CA 94080
6.General Plan designation:
Various. Project is citywide
7.Zoning:
Various. Project is citywide
8.Description of Project:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
The proposed Project consists of the adoption and implementation of the City of South San Francisco Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (PRMP)as well as proposed amendments to the City's General Plan. Project components
are described below.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 1
June 2015
This Initial Study(IS) provides programmatic-level analysis of the proposed plans.The PRMP does not include any
development proposals and would not directly result in physical environmental effects due to the construction and
operation of facilities.Any future projects that would be implemented consistent with these plans would be
subject to further CEQA review by the City.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP)
The PRMP provides:
• background and context for evaluating the existing parks system;
• an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities,and current conditions;
• an analysis of the need for new,expanded or renovated parks and facilities,and for changes in
recreational programming;
• goals and recommendations for improving and maintaining the existing park and recreation system;
• goals and recommendations for acquiring or obtaining access to additional properties for future park
uses;
• a strategy for meeting the need for, managing and maintaining recreational facilities; and
• an approach for implementation of improvements and long term maintenance.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is organized in the following manner:
• Chapter 1: Introduction
This Chapter gives a brief overview of the purpose of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and a summary of its
contents.
• Chapter 2: Context
This Chapter discusses the physical context as well as the planning context for the Master Plan. It identifies Plans
whose provisions relate to Parks and Recreation in the city,and notes policy direction and impact.
• Chapter 3: Demographics and Trends
This Chapter provides a detailed look at the city's current demographics and projections regarding future growth in
this evolving city. Further,it examines emerging trends in recreation,fitness and leisure activities,as well as health
and wellness trends.
• Chapter 4: Inventory
A comprehensive inventory of the city's parks and its recreation facilities is included in this Chapter. Thirty-seven
parks and open spaces and eight recreation facilities are described.
• Chapter 5: Comparative Analysis
Three comparable cities, Milpitas,San Bruno and Redwood City responded to detailed questionnaires regarding
their parks and facilities, recreational programs and financial operations. This Chapter analyzes South San
Francisco's parks and programming in relation to these cities, in order to gain insights to: (1) measure
performance, (2)establish goals,and (3)develop action plans.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 2
June 2015
• Chapter 6: Community Outreach
This plan was informed and guided by extensive community outreach. This Chapter describes the process,and
briefly summarizes results. More complete details of outreach outcomes are found in the Appendices.
• Chapter 7: Program Assessment
Based on the information gathered through outreach,observation, interviews with staff,and comparative analysis,
the city's recreational programming is assessed in this Chapter. Capacity,demand,funding,and resources are
analyzed.
• Chapter 8: Goals and Recommendations
Overall goals and specific recommendations are set forth in this Chapter. Areas addressed include acreage
standards, park access,sports field standards, park features and amenities, maintenance,Orange Memorial Park
Master Plan and Aquatics Center,community center facilities,performing arts facilities, programming,open space
access,sustainability and technology.
• Chapter 9: Implementation
This Chapter discusses funding strategies for implementing the recommendations.
The PRMP provides a policy framework including twelve overarching goals designed to support implementation of
the long-term vision for city's parks, recreation and open space over the next 15 years,as well as
recommendations for achieving the goals.
• GOAL 1: South San Francisco should provide a minimum of 3 acres of developed parkland per 1,000
residents,and 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 employees.
• GOAL 2: Every South San Francisco resident should be within a 5-minute walk of a park,trail or open
space.
• GOAL 3: South San Francisco should provide well maintained sports fields, including diamond and
rectangle fields suitable for regular practice,games,and tournament play.
• GOAL 4: Incorporate innovative amenities to serve multiple user groups as new parks and facilities are
developed or existing parks are renovated.
• GOAL 5: South San Francisco's parks and facilities should be regularly maintained to the highest standard,
and the backlog of deferred maintenance should be eliminated.
• GOAL 6: Complete the development of the 2007 Orange Memorial Park Master Plan, including purchase
or long term agreement for use of the property currently owned by Cal Water,and construction of an
expanded indoor aquatics facility.
• GOAL 7: Develop a multi-use Community Center that will support the range of programming desired by
the South San Francisco community.
• GOAL 8: Provide facilities to support South San Francisco's thriving performing arts community.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 3
June 2015
• GOAL 9: Expand programming capacity and efficiencies to effectively serve South San Francisco's diverse
community.
• GOAL 10: Enhance access and educational value of South San Francisco's open spaces,while protecting
and restoring unique habitat.
• GOAL 11: Incorporate sustainable features into parks and facilities to increase water conservation,energy
efficiency,and habitat values,to encourage non-motorized transportation,and to educate about the
environment.
• GOAL 12: Continue to develop technology for efficient administration,tracking,and communications.
General Plan Amendments
The proposed General Plan Amendments provide recommended policy updates to the City of South San
Francisco's existing General Plan, including goals and policies upon which proposed PRMP recommendations are
based.The General Plan Amendments would include edits and additions to existing text and policies in various
sections of the Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element and the Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation
section of the Open Space and Conservation Element.These amendments integrate the objectives of the PRMP
into the City's long-term planning framework.The proposed amendments to the General Plan text and policies are
provided in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
9.Surrounding land uses and setting:Briefly describe the Project's surroundings:
Parks,open space and recreational facilities are distributed throughout the city.
10.Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits,financing approval,or
participation agreement.)
The proposed Project would not require action by any other agencies.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 4
June 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project,
❑ Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quality
Materials
❑ Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
❑ Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
❑ Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Date:June 10, 2015
Printed Name: Sailesh Mehra,Planning Manager For: City of South San Francisco
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 5
June 2015
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following section adapts and completes the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines.The checklist is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project.
For this checklist,the following designations are used:
• Potentially Significant Impact:An impact that could be significant,and for which no mitigation has been
identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified,an EIR must be prepared.
• Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
• Less-Than-Significant Impact:Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to
existing standards.
• No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I.AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ❑
not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ® ❑
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
a-c) No Impact
The Goals and Recommendations of the PRMP do not grant any entitlements for development that would have the
potential to degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment or adversely affect visual resources. Improvements
made based on the Goals and Recommendations of the PRMP would occur in currently developed areas
throughout the City. Provision of additional park,open space and trails in existing urbanized areas will enhance the
aesthetic effect and visual character surrounding the facility. Any future development project that would
implement the PRMP recommendations would be subject to applicable city regulations and requirements,as well
as be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and the South San Francisco
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 6
June 2015
Zoning Regulations would manage the appearance of any structural development in the City, including scenic
corridors,to ensure that there would be no impacts to scenic vistas and the existing visual character of the City.
d) Less Than Significant Impact
Potential improvements to park facilities could result in an increase in light intensity adjacent to the site,although
the impact on surrounding properties would be expected to be less than significant. In addition,the PRPM states
that the city should study locations where lighting may be provided without detriment to the surrounding
residential neighbors. Recommended lighting improvements would be required to meet the performance
standards set forth in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.010G,which have been designed to
require lighting that does not produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties.
Photometric analysis shall be submitted to the City demonstrating lighting requirements have been satisfied for
any potential projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
II.AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or ❑
Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑
Williamson Act contract?
c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑
which,due to their location or nature,could result in
conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a-e) No Impact
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 7
June 2015
The City is built out and contains no important farmland, land zoned for agricultural use,or land subject to a
Williamson Act contract.Similarly,the City does not contain any forestland or timberland or any land zoned for
such uses.The proposed Project does not include any development proposals or requests to rezone land or that
would result in the conversion of agricultural or forestland to another use.Therefore,the proposed Project would
have no impact on agriculture or forest resources.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
III.AIR QUALITY: Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑
number of people?
a—e) No Impact
The City is located within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD),which has prepared an Ozone
Attainment Plan and Clean Air Plan to address the basin's nonattainment with the national 1-hour ozone standard
and the California ambient air quality standards(CAAQS).The emissions inventories contained in these plans are
based on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)for the region. Projects that result in an
increase in population or employment growth beyond that identified in regional or community plans could result
in increases in VMT and subsequently increase mobile source emissions,which could conflict with the BAAQMD's
air quality planning efforts.
The proposed PRMP will not impact the rate or intensity of development.The proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct the implementation of the air quality plans prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District to attain State and national air quality standards,or violate any air quality standard. The proposed PRMP
does not include any site-specific designs or grant any entitlements for development. It provides only concepts for
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 8
June 2015
recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of
improvements in the future. Future construction projects will continue to be reviewed through the City's
entitlement process and CEQA to ensure consistency with local,State,and federal air quality standards and
consistency with the goals, policies,and standards established within the other elements of the General Plan that
are intended to protect air quality.The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and
additions intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Future implementing actions of the PRMP would not
include any new housing or employment centers and would not result in population or employment growth
beyond that identified in regional or community plans.The project would not result in any indirect or cumulatively
adverse impacts on air quality.The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or objectionable odors.
The proposed PRMP recommends potential linear parks which would increase the use of non-motorized
transportation,thus reducing potential impacts to air quality. It includes recommendations for additional parkland
within the city,which would result in additional landscape and trees,thus having favorable impacts on air quality.
Recommendations for additional parks in underserved areas would reduce the need for vehicle trips to access
parks,thus reducing potential impacts to air quality. It also includes recommendations for energy-efficiency,which
may result in an indirect improvement to air quality.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact on air
quality.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or ❑ ® ❑
through habitat modifications,on any species identified
as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ® ❑
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies,regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ® ❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,
hydrological interruption,or other means?
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 9
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ® ❑
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑
protecting biological resources,such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat
conservation plan?
a-d) Less Than Significant Impact
Although the PRMP provides concepts for recreation facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for
the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future, it does not include any site specific designs for
development projects, or grant any entitlements for development. Any future project that would implement
PRMP recommendations would be subject to applicable federal,state,and local regulations that protect biological
resources, including the City's two habitat management plans adopted for those areas of the City that provide
significant wildlife habitat(see Discussion IV(e-f) below). Future projects would also be subject to project specific
CEQA analysis of project-level impacts.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions(in particular,7.1-G-1,7.1-G-2,
7.1-I-1,and 7.1-I-4),as well as compliance with applicable existing regulations, including but not limited to the
federal Endangered Species Act,California Endangered Species Act,and Migratory Bird Treaty Act,would ensure
impacts to biological resources in the City would be less than significant.
e-f) No Impact
South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and covered under the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP):the southern base of San
Bruno Mountain within the city limits,and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated as parkland by the City(see
General Plan Figure 7-2).As discussed above,the proposed PRMP and General Plan Amendments would have no
direct impact on biological resources. The proposed PRMP provides general recommendations for improved
access and expansion of parkland on Sign Hill,and identifies an area within the Terrabay Specific Plan District area
which could expand access to San Bruno Mountain. Goal 10 of the PRMP is to "Enhance access and educational
value of South San Francisco's open spaces,while protecting and restoring unique habitat." Recommendations
regarding the habitat conservation areas include vegetation management for preservation and improvement of
habitat,and trail improvements to prevent erosion and discourage off-trail usage which could compromise habitat.
As per General Plan Policy 7.1-I-1,a biological resource assessment was prepared for Sign Hill in conjunction with
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 10
June 2015
the preparation of recommendations,and is incorporated into the PRMP as an appendix. Within the Terrabay
Specific Plan District,SSF Municipal Code Section 20.240.011 requires implementation of all measures necessary to
protect environmental quality as set forth in HCP and related EIRs. Per General Plan Policy 7.1-1-1,cooperation
with state and federal agencies prior to the development of any improvements in these areas will ensure that
improvements do not substantially affect special-status species. Furthermore,all future improvement projects that
would implement the PRMP would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts. Continued
implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and consultation with applicable state and federal wildlife
agencies would ensure no conflicts with the City's adopted habitat conservation plans.There would be no impact.
Future development projects would be required to be consistent with local policies and ordinances.The city's Tree
Preservation Ordinance(Municipal Code Chapter 13.30)applies to any tree designated as a protected tree on
property within the city.Vegetation management, parks maintenance and any future development consistent with
the PRMP would be required to comply with the requirements of this ordinance.The City participates in the San
Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP),along with the City of Brisbane, Daly City,San Mateo County,
and US Fish and Wildlife Service.Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's guidelines to require that
construction of projects is consistent with the City's habitat conservation plan. Projects and improvements
recommended by the PRMP would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. In consideration of the above,the
proposed project would have no impact on resource protection and preservation programs.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ® ❑
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ® ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ® ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
a—d) Less Than Significant Impact
Cultural resources include historic buildings and structures, historic districts, historic sites, prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites,and other prehistoric and historic objects and artifacts. The PRMP includes recommendations
concerning Sign Hill,the location of the city's iconic"South San Francisco The Industrial City"sign,which was
registered in the National Registry of Historic Places in 1996. The recommendations include improving access to
Sign Hill and protecting and restoring its habitat value. It also recommends improving trails to reduce erosion and
discourage off-trail use. These recommendations are intended to preserve and enhance Sign Hill as a community
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 11
June 2015
resource,and would not be expected to result in adverse changes to the historic sign.
Most policy recommendations in the PRMP would have no direct impact on cultural resources, but future activities
to implement the PRMP could adversely affect these resources. Construction of recreation facilities could have the
potential to adversely affect cultural resources. However,General Plan Policy 7.5-1-4 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,any future development projects that
would implement PRMP recommendations would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-specific impacts.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor text changes and additions to integrate the proposed
PRMP into the City's long-range planning document.The amendments do not include any changes that could
directly impact cultural resources.This impact would be less than significant.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ® ❑
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated ❑ ® ❑
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ® ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
topsoil?
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 12
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, ❑ ® ❑
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project,and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18- ❑ ® ❑
1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ® ❑
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
a—e) Less Than Significant Impact
South San Francisco is located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.There are approximately 30 known
faults in the San Francisco Bay Area, 11 of which are within 40 miles of the City that are considered capable of
generating earthquakes(City of South San Francisco 1999). The policy recommendations of the PRMP would not
directly result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with seismic activity or soil instability.
The recommendations of the proposed PRMP do not include any site-specific designs, nor does it grant any
entitlements for development. Future projects that would implement the proposed PRMP would not include any
habitable structures.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor text changes and additions to integrate the proposed
CAP and PMP into the City's long-range planning document.The amendments do not include any changes to
existing land use designations or other changes that could result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards
associated with seismic activity,soil instability or soil erosion.
The design-controllable aspects of protection from seismic ground motion and soil or slope instability are governed
by existing regulations of the State of California (California Building Code,California Code of Regulations [CCR],
Title 24, Part 2)or the City of South San Francisco (South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15).These regulations
require that project designs reduce potential adverse soils,geology,and seismicity effects to less than significant
levels. Compliance with these regulations is required, not optional.Compliance must be demonstrated by a project
applicant to have been incorporated in the project's design before permits for project construction would be
issued.Therefore,there would be a less than significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault,
strong seismic ground shaking,seismic-related ground failure, landslides, unstable soils,expansive soils,or septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The PRMP recommends improvements to the trails on Sign Hill to prevent continuing erosion,and thus would have
a positive impact on soil erosion. Ground disturbance during construction of facilities associated with the PRMP
would have the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However,existing state law and General Plan
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 13
June 2015
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.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly ❑
or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ❑ ❑
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
a-b) No Impact
The goals, policies,and programs of the PRMP are in compliance with the California Air Resource Board's(ARB)
Scoping Plan and ABAG's Plan Bay Area,which are designed to implement the greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions
reductions required by AB 32 and SB 375. SB 375 requires each of California's Metropolitan Planning Organizations
to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS) containing land use, housing,and transportation strategies that
would allow the region to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Plan Bay Area is the SCS and
Regional Transportation Plan developed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region by ABAG and the
Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). Plan Bay Area establishes Priority Conservation Areas to support habitat,
agriculture, recreation and other ecological functions. The PCA program was updated in 2014 to recognize the
importance of urban greening and regional recreation by designating Urban Greening and Regional Recreation
categories for PCA qualification. Plan Bay Area also targets encouragement of active(non-motorized)
transportation.
The PRMP recommends pursuit of designation of Sign Hill as a Priority Conservation Area,to protect this open
space that sequesters carbon and removes greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. The PRMP also contains a
goal (Goal 11)and corresponding recommendations to incorporate sustainable features into parks and facilities to
increase water conservation,energy efficiency,and habitat values,to encourage non-motorized transportation,and
to educate about the environment. Future projects will also be subject to environmental review to ensure that any
interim or adopted project-level greenhouse gas emissions threshold is not exceeded or is mitigated,and to ensure
compliance with the Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area.Therefore,the proposed project would have no negative
impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 14
June 2015
Additionally,the City adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2014 pursuant to the BAAQMD requirements for a
"qualified"GHG reduction plan to meet GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035. Citywide GHG emissions and
reductions are addressed in the Climate Action Plan,and are consistent with the statewide reduction goals of AB
32. Potential recreation facility projects implementing the PRMP would also be evaluated for their consistency
with the Climate Action Plan
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would
the project:
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ® ❑
environment through the routine transport, use,or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ® ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ® ❑
acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ® ❑
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ® ❑
or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 15
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ® ❑
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑
loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a-c) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs,grant any entitlements for development,or change
any land use designations or zoning and would have no potential to directly result in the routine handling,
generation,transportation,emission,or accidental release of hazardous materials or otherwise expose the public
to hazardous substances. Additionally,the PRMP does not propose any project that would result in the permanent
installation of hazardous materials that could be released by accident or released within one-quarter mile of a
school. Although it provides conceptual recommendations,these are only recommendations intended to be used
as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements. However,future activities under the PRMP
could involve the limited use of hazardous materials during construction and operation (i.e.,fuels,solvents,
pesticides,etc.).The amount of materials used would be small,so the Project would not create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials,assuming
such use complies with applicable federal, state,and local regulations, including, but not limited to,Titles 8 and 22
of the California Code of Regulations(CCR),the Uniform Fire Code,and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and
Safety Code.
Hazardous materials regulations,which are codified in Titles 8,22,and 26 of the CCR,and their enabling legislation
set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code,were established at the state level to ensure
compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use
of hazardous substances.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.These amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other
changes that could result in the exposure of people to risks associated with hazardous materials.This impact
would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed PRMP is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific designs,grant any
entitlements for development,or change any land use designations or zoning.Therefore,they would have no
potential to directly result in development of a known hazardous release site. Future activities could involve
development and/or expansion of park and recreation facilities.According to the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (2015) Envirostor database of hazardous materials release sites,there are numerous hazardous
materials release sites in the City. Because specific improvement projects are not known at this time, it cannot be
determined if they would be constructed on or near a known hazardous release site. However,any future
development project that would implement PRMP measures would be subject to future environmental review,
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 16
June 2015
which would include a search of appropriate databases to determine whether the site is a listed hazardous
materials site and the status of the site at the time improvements are proposed (e.g.,whether further evaluation
or cleanup action is required or if the case is closed). If improvements would occur on a listed hazardous materials
site,the project would be required to comply with applicable federal,state, and local regulations related to
hazardous materials,which would ensure there would be minimal risk of significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
e) Less Than Significant Impact
The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport and within the San Mateo County
Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC)jurisdiction.According to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport(C/CAG 2012),all but the northern and
western portions of the City are located within Airport Influence Area B.Within Area B,real estate disclosures are
required and the ALUC must review proposed land use policy actions and land development proposals.
The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs,grant any entitlements for development,or change
any land use designations or zoning.The policies of the PRMP would not directly result in the exposure of people
or structures to hazards associated with airport operations. Implementation of the PRMP would not result in the
construction of any habitable structures.The PRMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used
as guidance for the City in implementing improvements. If specific improvement projects would be located within
Area B of the airport's Land Use Compatibility Plan,they would be required to comply with any applicable safety
and compatibility policies of the Land Use Compatibility Plan.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions to implement the proposed
PRMP.Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions such as Policy 8.7-I-1,which restricts land
uses in the vicinity of San Francisco International Airport,as well as compliance with the airport's Land Use
Compatibility Plan,would minimize potential hazards related to airport operations.Therefore,this impact would
be less than significant.
f) No Impact
There are no private airstrips in the City.There would be no impact.
g) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed PRMP policies do not include any site specific designs or changes to existing land use designations.
Implementation actions that implement the policies of the PRMP could require temporary road closures during
construction phases. However,any closures would be short-term,and alternative routes would be provided as
necessary. It is unlikely that these actions would significantly interfere with adopted emergency response or
evacuation plans. Further,all future improvement projects could be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-
specific impacts.Therefore,this impact would be less than significant.
h) No Impact
The proposed PRMP does not include improvements that would expose people or structures to significant risk of
wildland fires.There would be no impact.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 17
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the
project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑
discharge requirements?
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ® ❑
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 18
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ® ❑
loss,injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ® ❑
a,f) Less Than Significant Impact
The PRMP does not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to degrade water
quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.The PRMP policies would have no
direct impact on water quality, and its concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance
for the City in implementing these types of improvements,and as such would have no direct impact on water
quality. Future activities could introduce pollutants into stormwater runoff,which could potentially degrade
downstream water quality. Improvements developed as part of the PRMP implementation,and construction of
future parks and recreation facilities could result in soil erosion and sedimentation and result in pollutants entering
stormwater runoff during rain events(i.e.,fuels,oil, solvents, paints,trash). In addition,operation of these
facilities could also introduce limited amounts of pollutants into stormwater runoff,such as pesticides used in
landscaped areas. Any future construction would be required to comply with applicable policies related to
hydrology and water quality issues, including the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board,which requires compliance with the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for construction runoff and long-term urban runoff.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.The amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes
that could result in water quality degradation.
As discussed above,ground disturbance during construction of facilities associated with the PRMP would have the
potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However,existing state law and General Plan Policy 7.2-1-1
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),which serves
the portion of the City east of Interstate 280(1-280),and the Westborough County Water District,which serves the
area west of 1-280.The PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, nor does it grant any entitlements for
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 19
June 2015
development that would have the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge.The PRMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in
implementing improvements.The PRMP includes Goal 10,to incorporate sustainable features into parks and
facilities to increase water conservation.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.The amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes
that could result in groundwater depletion or interference with recharge. Continued implementation of City
General Plan policy provisions and the South San Francisco Zoning Regulations would minimize impacts to
groundwater.This impact would be less than significant.
c-e) Less Than Significant Impact
The PRMP does not include any site-specific designs, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that
would have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff.The
PRMP concept plans are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing
these types of improvements. Improvements to implement the PRMP could alter drainage patterns and runoff
rates, resulting in flooding and/or exceedance of the drainage system capacity, however, improvements associated
with the PRMP would be located in currently developed areas,such as existing residential neighborhoods and
transit centers,to increase opportunities for active and passive recreation. Any new facilities would be required
to be designed to accommodate stormwater collection and conveyance into approved facilities,therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.Continued implementation of City development standards would minimize impacts related to
surface runoff and the City's drainage system.This impact would be less than significant.
g) No Impact
The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing.There would be no
impact.
h) Less Than Significant Impact
Future implementing actions for the proposed PRMP could include structures. Because specific improvement
projects are not known at this time,the precise location of these improvements cannot be determined.Should
improvements be proposed for development within a special flood hazard area,they would require issuance of a
development permit by the City and would be subject to the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of
the City's Municipal Code,which is intended to promote the public safety and minimize public and private losses
due to flood conditions.This impact would be less than significant.
i,j) Less Than Significant Impact
Earthquakes can cause tsunami (tidal waves)and seiches(oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the San
Francisco Bay. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean,the San Francisco Bay,and the hillsides within San Bruno
Mountain State and County Park,the City is subject to risk of inundation from tsunami,seiche,and mudflow.
However,the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of any housing or other
habitable structures and would not result in population growth.Therefore, the Project would not increase
exposure of persons to the risk of inundation from tsunami,seiche,or mudflow.This impact would be less than
significant.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 20
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
X.LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or ❑ ❑ ❑
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning
ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ❑ ❑
or natural community conservation plan?
a-c) No Impact
The proposed PRMP does not propose any changes to existing land use designations or zoning and anticipates that
land uses will be consistent with the designations established by the City's General Plan. None of the
improvements contemplated in the PRMP would create barriers that could divide the community, rather,they are
intended to provide open space links to join communities and provide common open space and recreational
amenities to bring communities together.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.The amendments would not include any changes to existing land use designations or other
changes that could result in the division of the community.There would be no impact
The proposed PRMP does not include any changes to existing land use designations or zoning.The proposed
General Plan Amendments include minor text changes and additions intended to implement the PRMP.There
would be no conflicts with the City's General Plan,zoning ordinance,or other land use planning documents.There
would be no impact.
As discussed in the Biological Resources section, South San Francisco contains two areas set aside as habitat for the
conservation of threatened and endangered species:the southern base of San Bruno Mountain within the City
limits,and the portion of Sign Hill currently designated as parkland by the City(see General Plan Figure 7-2).These
areas are designated by the General Plan as parkland,within the area of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP). The City is currently not participating in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).
Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's guidelines to require that construction of projects is
consistent with the City's habitat conservation plan,and all potential improvements implementing the PRMP
would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. General Plan Policy 7.1-1-1 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.The PRMP contains as an Appendix a Biological Resources Assessment prepared in March 2015 which
contains recommendations for protection and preservation of the Sign Hill area,compliant with the HCP.
Furthermore,all future improvement projects that would implement the PRMP would be subject to further CEQA
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 21
June 2015
analysis of project-specific impacts.Continued implementation of City General Plan policy provisions and
consultation with applicable state and federal wildlife agencies would ensure no conflicts with the City's adopted
habitat conservation plans.There would be no impact.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XI.MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
a-b) No Impact
The proposed PRMP does not propose improvements or conceptual plans that would have the potential to result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
There are no mines included on the Office of Mine Reclamation AB 3098 list operating within the City of
South San Francisco. Future implementation activities would occur within the City,which is an urbanized area
that contains no known significant mineral resources or resource recovery sites. As the PRMP's conceptual plans
are only recommendations intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing these types of
improvements,they would have no direct impact on mineral resources or mineral recovery sites.
The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.The amendments do not include any changes to existing land use designations or other changes
that could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site.Therefore,there would be no impact.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillilillillilillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 22
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XII.NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ® ❑
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ® ❑
or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ Fq
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
a-c) Less than significant Impact
The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs,grant any entitlements for development,or
propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation
facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of
improvements in the future. As a policy document the PRMP would have no direct impacts related to noise, but
future implementing actions could result in the generation of noise. Generally,the operation of parks,open
spaces and recreation facilities would not generate significant noise.To the extent that these could be considered
noise generators,General Plan Policy 9-I-8 requires the control of noise at the source through site design, building
design, landscaping, hours of operation,and other techniques.Compliance with this policy would ensure this
impact is less than significant.
d) Less than significant Impact
The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs,grant any entitlements for development,or
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 23
June 2015
propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation
facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of
improvements in the future. Construction of facilities associated with the PRMP could exceed noise standards.
However,the South San Francisco Municipal Code includes special provisions in Section 8.32,which regulate
allowable noise generated by construction or by special events. Compliance with the limitations of Municipal Code
Section 8.32 would ensure that construction noise levels and noise from special events would not exceed noise
limitations established by the City.This would be a less than significant impact.
e) Less than significant Impact
The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport and within the San Mateo County
Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC)jurisdiction.According to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport(C/CAG 2012),all but the northern and
western portions of the City are located within Airport Influence Area B.Within Area B,the ALUC must review
proposed land use policy actions and land development proposals,and real estate disclosures are required
notifying buyers of potential aircraft noise.The proposed Project would not,directly or indirectly, result in the
construction of any residential uses. Future implementation actions could result in construction of facilities that
would require on-site employees. However,these future uses would be subject to the policy provisions contained
in the City's General Plan Noise Element,which contain specific noise standards related to airport operations.
Compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that this impact would be less than significant.
f) No Impact
There are no private airstrips in the City.There would be no impact.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑
either directly(for example,by proposing new homes
and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 24
June 2015
a-c) No Impact
The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs,grant any entitlements for development,or
propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation
facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of
improvements in the future. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions
intended to implement the proposed PRMP. Future improvements would not include the development of any new
housing or employment centers that would increase the population directly or induce population growth.
Therefore,there would be no impact.
The proposed PRMP includes policy recommendations and provides only concept plans for park and recreation
facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of
improvements in the future. Future actions would not require the demolition of existing housing or construction of
housing elsewhere.Therefore,there would be no impact.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES:
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse ❑
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Fq
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Fq
Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Fq
Other public facilities? ❑
a) No Impact
The proposed PRMP does not include any site-specific designs,grant any entitlements for development,or
propose to change existing land use designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 25
June 2015
facilities and improvements intended to serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of
improvements in the future. The proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions
intended to implement the proposed PRMP. The proposed PRMP implements the goals of the existing General
Plan, rather than generating increased needs. Therefore,the proposed Project would have no direct impact on
public services. Future implementing actions of the PRMP would not include any residential uses or employment
centers that would generate demand for public services.Therefore,there would be no impact.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XV. RECREATION:
a)Would the project increase the use of existing ® ❑
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ® ❑
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
a-b) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed PRMP would not increase population or the demand for park facilities. Recommended
improvements to existing parks could increase usage. The intent is that more residents and employees would use
park facilities, however, increased use is not projected to degrade the infrastructure. Goal 5 of the PRMP states
that South San Francisco's parks and facilities should be regularly maintained to the highest standard,and the
backlog of deferred maintenance should be eliminated.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the PRPM would result in construction or expansion of recreational facilities which would
expand park resources.These improvements would not be necessarily in response to increased demand for park
services but rather would increase recreational opportunities throughout the City. Provision of these recreational
facilities would be consistent with the General Plan,and would not have a foreseeably adverse physical effect on
the environment since these improvements would improve existing neighborhood facilities to required standards,
or add new facilities to underserved areas,thereby supporting local residents and employees with proximate, high-
quality recreational opportunities. Temporary impacts due to construction activities have been addressed in
preceding sections,therefore impacts related to provision of parks and recreation facilities would be less than
significant.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 26
June 2015
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a)Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy ❑ ❑ ❑
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections,streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass
transit?
b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ ❑ Fq
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Fq
feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs ❑ ❑ ❑
regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
a-b) No Impact
The proposed PRMP does not conflict with any plan,ordinance or policy regarding performance of the circulation
system.The PRMP Goal 2,that every South San Francisco resident should be within a 5-minute walk of a park,trail
or open space,supports the General Plan's Guiding Policy 4.2-G-8 to strive reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled.
Future implementation of a PRMP recommendation which results in an individual development project would be
reviewed for the potential to result in project-level traffic impacts or contribution to cumulative adverse traffic
conditions. Individual development projects are conditioned to provide traffic improvements to reduce significant
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 27
June 2015
impacts, unless the City determines that there are considerations,such as social,economic,or other benefits from
a project that override the project's contribution to adverse traffic impacts. There would be no impact.
C) No Impact
The City is located immediately north of San Francisco International Airport,and largely within the boundaries of
the airport's Land Use Compatibility Plan (C/CAP 2012). Nothing in the PRMP would result in development that
would change air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks related to air traffic patterns.All future
implementing actions would also be required to comply with the safety and compatibility policies of the airport's
Land Use Compatibility Plan and would not affect the location of air traffic patterns in the region.There would be
no impact on air traffic patterns.
d-e) No Impact
Future improvements recommended by the PRMP will be carefully evaluated to ensure that bicycle, pedestrian,
transit passengers and disabled travelers are provided safe and efficient access to transportation resources. No
new design features would be added that could create hazardous conditions.Any future linear parks or other
facilities would be reviewed by the city to ensure they would not result in impacts on emergency access. There
would be no impact.
f) No Impact
The proposed PRMP is focused on improving access to park and recreation facilities,and encouraging non-
motorized transportation,which support guiding policies of the General Plan,the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plans,as well as the Climate Action Plan,all of which identify operational standards for multi-modal
transportation. No current or anticipated public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities would be negatively
impacted by the improvement of addition of new park and recreation facilities since these governing documents
would be considered for any future project. As such,there would be no impact.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 28
June 2015
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ® ❑
project from existing entitlements and resources,or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and ❑
regulations related to solid waste?
a-c,e-g) No Impact
The proposed PRMP is located within an urbanized are currently served by existing utilities and utility
infrastructure. Existing utilities and service systems have adequate capacity to serve the City of South San
Francisco in terms of both existing parks and future potential park development. The wastewater conveyance
infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco is in generally good condition.The Water Quality Control Plant is
jointly owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. It treats all wastewater generated within the two
cities and has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and some wastewater
produced by the City of Daly City.The General Plan EIR indicated that major wastewater treatment facilities were
adequate,or would be improved in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth.
The proposed PRMP does not grant any entitlements for development,or propose to change existing land use
designations or zoning. It provides only concept plans for park and recreation facility improvements intended to
serve as guidance for the City in implementing these types of improvements in the future. Future implementing
actions of the PRMP would not include any residential uses or employment centers that would generate demand
for utility services. Future implementing actions would be reviewed by the city for compliance with storm water
quality requirements as established by the General Plan,Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code,and RWQCB. The
proposed General Plan Amendments include only minor changes and additions intended to implement the
proposed PRMP.Therefore,the proposed Project would have no direct impact on public utilities.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 29
June 2015
d) Less Than Significant Impact
The California Water Service Company(CWSC),which purchases most of its water supply from the San Francisco
Water Department, provides water service to the City of South San Francisco.The Westborough County Water
District serves the area west of 1-280.The CWSC has water supplies and plans for conveyance infrastructure
adequate to meet the service demand projections of its service area,which includes the City of South San
Francisco. The PRMP does not grant any entitlements for development that would have the potential to deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.The PMP concept plans are only recommendations
intended to be used as guidance for the City in implementing improvements. Future improvements would include
development of park and recreation facilities,with minimal water demand for irrigation of landscaped areas. The
PRMP includes Goal 11,to incorporate sustainable features into parks and facilities to increase water conservation,
thus reducing water demand. Future implementing actions of the PRMP would not significantly increase water
demand in the City.This impact would be less than significant.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVIII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ® ❑
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ® ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of other
current projects,and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 30
June 2015
a) Less Than Significant Impact
As described in Section IV,the proposed Project would have no direct impact on biological resources,and future
implementing actions would be subject to applicable federal,state,and local regulations that protect such
resources, including the City's two habitat management plans and associated policy provisions.Compliance with
these existing regulations would ensure that the Project would have a less than significant impact on plant and
wildlife species and their habitat.Similarly,as described in Section V,the proposed Project would have no direct
impact on prehistoric and historic resources,and future implementing actions would be subject to General Plan
policies and existing state regulations that protect such resources.Continued compliance with these policies and
existing regulations would ensure that the Project would have a less than significant impact on prehistoric and
historic resources. Furthermore,future implementing actions would be subject to further CEQA analysis of project-
specific impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
Future implementing actions could result in temporary impacts due to construction, but these impacts would be
less than significant due to measures described in the sections above,and thus would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
C) Less Than Significant Impact
As described in the sections above,the proposed Project will not have significant environmental effects that could
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 31
June 2015
REFERENCES
The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis:
• BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District,2011.
• California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2,2015.
• California Health and Safety Code,Section 7050.5(b),2015.
• City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan.City of South San Francisco,2014.
• City of South San Francisco General Plan. City of South San Francisco, 1999 and amendments through
2015.
• City of South San Francisco General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. City of South San Francisco,
1999.
• City of South San Francisco Municipal Code.
• Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International
Airport.City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County,2012.
• DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2015. Envirostor database. Accessed May 21,
2015. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca,gov/public/,
• Habitat Conservation Plans, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what
we-do/hcp-overview.html
• Natural Community Conservation Planning, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015.
https:/Zwww.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP.
• Plan Bay Area.Association of Bay Area Governments,2013.
• San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP),
2452696.1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillillillillillilliillillilillillillillillilillillillillillillillillillilliillillilillillilI
SSF Parks and Recreation Master Plan Initial Study 32
June 2015