San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Mateo, San Mateo County, California

Prepared for: City of San Mateo Department of Parks and Recreation 330 W 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403

Contact: Sheila Canzian, Director

Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562

Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Andrew Hill, Project Manager

Report Date: October 20, 2017

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... v Section 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 ‐ Project Location ...... 1 1.2 ‐ Environmental Setting ...... 1 1.3 ‐ Project Description ...... 2 1.4 ‐ Features Not Subject to Change ...... 4 1.5 ‐ Required Discretionary Approvals ...... 4 1.6 ‐ Intended Uses of this Document ...... 5 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation ...... 13 1. Aesthetics ...... 14 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 16 3. Air Quality ...... 18 4. Biological Resources ...... 28 5. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 35 6. Geology and Soils ...... 43 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 48 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 52 9. Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 56 10. Land Use and Planning ...... 61 11. Mineral Resources ...... 62 12. Noise ...... 63 13. Population and Housing ...... 73 14. Public Services ...... 75 15. Recreation ...... 78 16. Transportation/Traffic ...... 79 17. Utilities and Service Systems ...... 83 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 87 Section 3: References ...... 89 Section 4: List of Preparers ...... 91

Appendix A: CalEEMod Modeling Appendix B: CDFW, CNPS, and USFWS Database Searches Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information C.1 ‐ NAHC and the Native American Correspondence C.2 ‐ Historic Resource Evaluation C.3 ‐ Paleontological Records Search Appendix D: Noise Monitoring Locations and Measurements Appendix E: Traffic Analysis

FirstCarbon Solutions iii Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

List of Tables

Table 1: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes ...... 22 Table 2: Construction Emissions ...... 22 Table 3: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes ...... 24 Table 4: Operational Emissions ...... 24 Table 5: BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis ...... 25 Table 6: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 48 Table 7: Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 49 Table 8: Noise Monitoring Summary ...... 64

Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax ...... 66 Table 10: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment ...... 69 Table 11: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria ...... 71

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ...... 7 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Base ...... 9 Exhibit 3: Draft Site Plan...... 11

iv FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade) °F degrees Fahrenheit µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos‐containing material APN Assessor’s Parcel Number ARB California Air Resources Board ARG Architectural Resources Group BMP best management practices BRA Biological Resources Analysis C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHL California Historical Landmarks List CMA Congestion Management Authority CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CPHI California Points of Historical Interest CR California Register of Historic Resources dB decibel dBA A‐weighted decibel DPM diesel particulate matter DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FCS FirstCarbon Solutions FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GHG greenhouse gases HRE Historic Resource Evaluation

FirstCarbon Solutions v Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

HRI California State Historic Resources Inventory IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ISO Insurance Services Office ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers JPA joint powers agreement lbs pounds

Ldn day/night sound level

Leq equivalent continuous sound level

Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MM Mitigation Measure mph miles per hour MRZ Mineral Resource Zone

MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NR National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center

PM10 particulate matter, diameter less than 10 microns

PM2.5 particulate matter, diameter less than 2.5 microns PPV inch per second peak particle velocity PRC Public Resource Code rms root mean square ROG reactive organic gases SB Senate Bill SFO San Francisco International Airport SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SMCFD San Mateo Fire Department SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program SMFCSD San Mateo‐Foster City School District SMUHSD San Mateo Union High School District TDM transportation demand management TSM transportation systems management UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

vi FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations

USGS U.S. Geological Survey VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compounds WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

FirstCarbon Solutions vii Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts from implementation of the San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Project in the City of San Mateo, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of San Mateo (City) is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the project. The City has discretionary authority over the proposed project. The intended use of this document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately prepare the project IS/MND and to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the characteristics of the project. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist giving an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation. Section 3 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, along with justification for the responses provided in the environmental checklist.

1.1 ‐ Project Location

The project site is located in San Mateo County, in the City of San Mateo (Exhibit 1), located approximately 1.3 miles from San Francisco Bay at 46 feet above the average sea level. The 16.3‐ acre project site is located at 50 E 5th Avenue and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 034200010.

The project site is an existing park that is centrally located in downtown San Mateo. The site is bounded by Laurel Avenue to the north, 9th Avenue to the east, 5th Avenue to the west, and El Camino Real to the south (Exhibit 2). Additionally, the project site is adjacent to residential homes, private businesses, and commercial developments.

1.2 ‐ Environmental Setting 1.2.1 ‐ Existing Conditions The 16.3‐acre project site currently rests on the existing Central Park in the City of San Mateo. The park contains many features, including an urban park forest, Japanese Tea Garden, Kohl Pumphouse and garden, Rose Garden, main event lawn, picnic areas, parking garage, maintenance yard, storage areas, restrooms, six lighted tennis courts, children’s train, gazebo, Fitzgerald Baseball Field, a remodeled and updated playground, walking pathways, and a recreation center. The project site contains a parking garage, along with multiple ADA spaces behind the Recreation Center. Multiple pathways and paved sidewalks also stretch throughout the project site connecting the park features. The park is relatively flat and contains redwood, oak, palm, gum, pine, magnolia, cherry, and maple trees.

FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.2.2 ‐ General Plan and Zoning Designations The City of San Mateo’s Land Use Plan designates the project site as “Parks/Open Space,” in the “Downtown” Planning Area. The City of San Mateo’s General Plan defines “Parks/Open Space” as public parks, City‐owned conservation lands, and private open space or recreation facilities. The City’s General City Image Plan designates the project site as a major focal point. The Park is designated a “Community Park & Center” within the City’s General Plan.

1.3 ‐ Project Description

The City of San Mateo proposes to enhance Central Park’s character as the City’s signature park and community gathering place. Central Park provides open space and recreational and cultural resources for the downtown, as well as the entire San Mateo community. The City is proposing to improve the park’s visual image and sense of open space, to enhance its value in support of downtown vitality, and to extend its utilization as a venue for community special events.

According to the Central Park Master Plan approved by the Parks and Recreation Department, the City of San Mateo intends to revitalize Central Park to include a variety of new and improved recreational amenities. These enhancements and new features in Central Park are planned to be grouped into four phases over a period of several years; however, as the order of improvement actions is subject to change based the availability of funding and City priorities, this initial study considers the potential environmental impact of full buildout of all proposed improvements. The project consists of improvements of the existing amenities, improve pedestrian circulation, creation of higher‐quality family gathering areas, and transformation of the park into a more welcoming and pleasing setting for all age groups (Exhibit 3).

The following is a summary of the proposed new features:

1.3.1 ‐ Expanded and Improved Features  Remodel Playground Zone—The existing playground form would be modified to accommodate the realigned pedestrian path adjacent to the new tennis court location. Separate spaces would be provided for older and younger groups of children, with appropriate play equipment for each and natural, less formal play experiences scattered throughout. The existing children’s train ride would not change, but pedestrian circulation would be modified to allow for better access and connection with the larger playground zone.

 Distribute Picnic Areas—The existing Rotary picnic area near the existing playground would be moved to the new rotary picnic pavilion while additional picnicking facilities would be provided in the play area. Additional picnicking facilities would dot the remainder of this area, providing both individual tables and group picnicking areas. The existing restroom would be replaced with a new restroom building that would service the playground area as well as the tennis grounds and event lawn.

 Enhancement of the Laurel Avenue Entryway—Construct a modified pedestrian and vehicle access point & turn‐around on the Laurel Avenue Entry. The project would maintain the two existing access points off Laurel Street. The roadways entering the park would be widened

2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction

and contain a new roundabout for vehicles. These access points would additionally include a walking path on the southern portion of the roadway.

 Enhancement of the Fitzgerald Baseball Field—The existing baseball facility, which includes a grandstand with storage areas beneath, would remain with some modifications and enhancement. The existing grandstand would be reduced in size to open the visual connection between 5th Avenue and Central Park, as well as provide for the enhanced streetscape. The reduced grandstand would receive façade and interior improvements, which would continue to provide spectator seating for events on the field. During the enhancement of the Fitzgerald Field, the improvements would also create a storefront‐like presence on 5th Avenue, keeping with the character of the park while providing the City with usable space to either lease out to local businesses or for community use.

 Enhancement of the 5th Avenue Streetscape—Based on the City’s goals and objectives for Central Park, strengthening the connection of the park space to downtown San Mateo is a high priority. The enhanced streetscape would include new, wider sidewalks, new street trees, expanded green parkway, park signage, bench seating, and improved pedestrian connections to the park itself. Some tree removal from the Urban Park Forest is necessary along 5th Avenue to improve access and visible transparency into the park. However, trees would be replaced in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code.

 Enhancement of the Park Gateways—All points of access for pedestrians in the park are preserved and enhanced.

 Expand the existing Parking Garage on 5th Avenue—In order to maintain the parking capacity of the park, the Master Plan provides for a new below‐grade parking garage in its current location. The new garage would need to be deeper than the existing structure in order to accommodate the new plaza above. There is potential for the new garage to include a second below‐grade level within the same footprint, to provide greater parking capacity for visitors to the park.

 Expansion and enhancement of the Pedestrian Path System—The majority of the existing path system is in excellent condition and would remain in place. There are a number of new paths added to the plan to improve pedestrian circulation between existing paths. One significant revision near the new Tennis Grounds is necessary to accommodate the courts.

1.3.2 ‐ New Features  Design and build Fallen Hero Memorial—A space has been set aside in the park for a memorial honoring San Mateo servicemen and women who died in the line of duty. This memorial would be designed at a later date, but it is likely to include paving, seat walls or benches, and memorial elements.

 Construct a new Storage Building—Storage for City use will be expanded in the park. A new storage building is depicted in the maintenance yard, and there will also be a new storage building near Fitzgerald Field—along the 3rd base line.

FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

 Construct a new 5th Avenue Central Park Plaza—The plaza replaces the current lit six tennis courts and is sized to be constructed on the top of a new below‐grade parking garage. The plaza is intended for a variety of casual, spontaneous use on a daily basis, as well as planned community events. The plaza would be constructed with hardscape areas and green space and planting areas. The space would include permanent benches and seat walls as well as movable tables and chairs for pedestrians. During the construction of the Central Park Plaza, the renovation of the 5th Avenue parking garage would occur as well.

 Interpretive Plan—Add education and historic information exhibits.

 Construct Community Event Building—Newly constructed community buildings would replace the existing structure in the park that currently houses Self Help for the Elderly. Demolition of the existing Landscape Architecture Office and restrooms is required to make room for the Community Event Building. The new buildings would face onto the plaza and total approximately 5,000 square‐feet; the one‐story new construction would consist of two separate structures accommodating large and small group events. Both buildings would include an appropriately sized catering kitchen and shared restrooms; they won’t each have their own restroom. There will be one restroom in the larger building with an exterior entry that will be accessible to both buildings.

 Construct the new Rotary Pavilion—This area would include the main Rotary Picnic Pavilion, picnic facilities, and a restroom/storage building. This area would be reserved for community and private events as well as group picnic use. The Pavilion is a large structure with a capacity of approximately 120 people designed to accommodate covered events and movable chairs and tables. The Self Help for the Elderly (Recreation Center) building is being removed to make way for the Rotary pavilion and additional open park space.

 Construct new Lighted Tennis Grounds—Three lighted tennis courts would remain in the park, at a new location near the playground zone. This area would provide three recreational‐sized tennis courts; a small, paved gathering space outside the courts; new trees and planting; bench seating; and two picnic tables.

1.4 ‐ Features Not Subject to Change

The San Mateo Central Park revitalization would preserve key park features. The Japanese Tea Garden, Kohl Pumphouse, Rose Garden, Main Event Lawn, Maintenance Yard, Children’s Mini Train, and Gazebo would remain in their current condition. The proposed project would not alter the bronze dog statue and would also preserve the existing giraffe sculpture located on‐site.

1.5 ‐ Required Discretionary Approvals

The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals:

 Central Park Master Plan  Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction

1.6 ‐ Intended Uses of this Document

This IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document would also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/MND would be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which period comments concerning the analysis contained in the IS/MND should be sent to:

Sheila Canzian, Director, Parks and Recreation City of San Mateo 330 W 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Email: [email protected]

FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Berkeley Orinda Alamo Moraga

Piedmont #!$"80

Project Site Upper San Alameda Leandro ! San Francisco Oakland Reservoir

Lake Chabot ounty Castro Valley San Francisco C San Leandro

Daly City San Lorenzo Text South San Francisco

Hayward San Bruno Pacifica 17 Project Site 92 ·|}þ Union City Millbrae ·|}þ San A Burlingame S Andreas la 82 a me Lake ·|}þ n M d San Mateo a a Hillsborough! te C o o C u n o t Lower Crystal u y Foster City n Fremont Springs ty ·|}þ84 Reservoir Belmont Redwood City Newark San Carlos Upper Crystal North Springs (/101 Fair Menlo Park Half Moon Bay Reservoir Oaks East Palo #!$"280 Alto

Stanford

Mountain View ·|}þ84 Palo Alto Sunnyvale ·|}þ1 Los Altos ·|}þ85

·|}þ35 Cupertino

Saratoga

·|}þ9

Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, FCS GIS 2013. GIS FCS CaSIL, The Data, 2000 Census Source:

5 2.5 0 5 1Exhibit I Miles Regional Location Map Location Regional 36110010 • 06/2016 | 1_regional.mxd| 06/2016 •36110010 MATEOSANMATEOOF SAN• MASTERUPDATEPARK CENTRALPLAN CITY INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONNEGATIVESTUDY/MITIGATED INITIAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Legend Project Site ·|}þ82 t S d 3r E

ve A h 4t E

ve A h 5t E

L a u S re D l e A l v a e w a d r R e e s v S g A t n th ri 9 p S l ta s ry C

E l C a m in o R e a l

Alam eda de l as Pu

lg as

Source: ESRI Imagery, 2015Imagery, Source:ESRI Exhibit 2 Exhibit

850 425 0 850 Map Vicinity Local I Feet Base Aerial 36110010 • 06/2016 | 2_vicinity.mxd | 06/2016 •36110010 MATEOSANMATEOOF SAN• MASTERUPDATEPARK CENTRALPLAN CITY INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVESTUDY/MITIGATEDDECLARATION INITIAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KEY 1. Updated Park Signage 12. Crosswalk Aligned with Paseo 21. Community Event Buildings (5,000 sf) 2. Existing Magnolias Remain 13. Down-sized Grandstand with 22. Ice Rink Electrical Equipment Storefront Facade Improvements 31 3. New Park Entry with Park & Usable Community Space, 23. Baseball Fencing LAUREL AVENUE Signage & Kohl-Style Fence Storage ( such as Art Studios underneath) 24. New Path 17 4. “Leon” Giraffe Sculpture 26 14. Vehicle, Events & Maintenance Access 1 Lawn 25. Turf Removal under Redwoods 5. Kohl Mansion Footprint Interpretive Feature 15. Widened Pedestrian Walk 26. Existing Pedestrian Access/Path Lawn 6. Movable Bistro Tables, Typ. with Trees & Benches 26 27. Existing Train Line 7. Vendor Kiosks 16. Park Gateway Signage & Pedestrian Entry 28. New Jim Chalmers San Mateo Rotary 4 8. Overhead String Lights Picnic Pavilion(2 00-person capacity) 5 17. Drought-Tolerant Perennials 9. Staff/Service Loading/Unloading 29. Picnic Shelte(re xisting park seating preserved) 30 Japanese 18. Stepped Seating to Raised Turf Area Tea 32 10. Entry to Renovated Parking Gara(g1-e2 Levels) 30. Parking Structure Elevator/Stairwell S. SAN Garden 19. Plaza Benches, Typ. MATEO DR. 2 11. Pedestrians Only 31. Controlled Vehicle Access 3 6 7 20. Plaza Games Area(Ping Pong, Chess Tables, etc.) 32. Pedestrian-Only Path 6 8 33. Loading/Unloading/Turn-around Central Park 33 Area for Authorized Vehicles Only (with truncated domes encircling) 19 Plaza 30 52 26 51 35 50 30 34. Future Site of Memorial for Fallen Heroes 29 34 6 8 36 35. Relocated Flag 20 28 24 9THAVENUE 36. Temporary Bandstand Location 18 26 LEGEND 37. Group Picnic Areas, Typ. 21 21 48 CENTRAL PARK PROPOSED 9 9 URBAN FOREST TREES 38. Playground (2-5 year-olds) 10 PRESERVED 53 49 Event Lawn 47 39. Playground (5-12 year-olds) 43 11 22 46 40. Natural Play Area 12 13 41. Park Gateway Signag(aet h istoric entrance) 42. New Restroom with Storage

26 43. Individual Picnic Table, Typ.

0.6-mile WALKING LOOP 44. Central Park Tennis Ground(s3 courts) 43 37 45. Tennis Plaza with Benches & Picnic Tables 41 42 45 46. Existing Maintenance Garage 44 INTERPRETIVE EXHIBIT/ART NODE 14 Fitzgerald Field 24 5THAVENUE 40 37 47. New Park Maintenance Storage Building 15 23 48. Historic Kohl Pumphouse & Garden 38 24 49. Greenhouse 50. Rose Garden 24 25 51. Park Gateway Signage 39 24 52. Dog Sculpture 27 37 53. Loading/Unloading for Picnic Pavilion 16 41 EL CAMINO REAL 26

Source: rrm design group, 2016 Exhibit 3 I Draft Site Plan 36110010 • 02/2017 | 3_proposedplan.cdr CITY OF SAN MATEO • SAN MATEO CENTRAL PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. 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 building 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?

Environmental Evaluation

The City of San Mateo is set between two dominant physical features: San Francisco Bay to the east and the ridge of hills along the City’s western border. The significant natural resource areas in San Mateo are the Bay Shoreline; Marina Lagoon; Sugarloaf Mountain; San Mateo, Beresford, and Laurel creeks; and certain undeveloped private lands that provide open space and wildlife habitat.

Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No impact. None of the identified scenic features are located on the project site and none are visible from the park. The project would continue the existing use of the site as a park, and therefore would not result in an adverse effect regarding scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?

No impact. The City of San Mateo does not contain any officially designated State of California scenic highways. The County of San Mateo General Plan Vision 2030 states that Alameda de las Pulgas, Crystal Springs Road, Polhemus Road, and State Route 92 are County‐designated scenic roads. These notable roadways, and J. Hart Clinton Drive within and adjacent to the City, offer views of creeks, hillsides, the Bay, and San Francisco and East Bay skylines, among other sights. Based on the distance and intervening topography and development between this segment of roadways and the project site, the project would occur outside of the viewshed of a State Scenic Highway. Additionally, this project site is a continuation of the existing land use activities; therefore, no impacts associated with State Scenic Highways would occur.

14 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

No impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urban area within downtown San Mateo. Since the project proposes to enhance and continue the existing park use of the site, it would be compatible with the existing visual character of the site and surrounding areas.

Therefore, the project would have no impact associated with visual character and quality. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less than significant impact. The project would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting. Adequate nighttime lighting would be provided to support recreational activities and to promote safety and security. Lighting would include pole‐mounted lighting in the new tennis court location and sports field lighting. The proposed parking structure will remain below the plaza and the lighting would not be visible from the park. Fitzgerald Field is currently lighted and would remain so following implementation of the Park Master Plan. As such, the project new lighting would have a less than significant impact on the surrounding area.

FirstCarbon Solutions 15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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?

Environmental Evaluation

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the

16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

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?

No impact. The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program does not identify the project site surrounding area as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The land surrounding the project site is highly developed with single‐family residential uses, and no agricultural land or operations occur in the project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with the conversion of any Farmland would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No impact. Based on the California Department of Conservation’s San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007 Map, the project site does not contain any land under Williamson Act contract. The San Mateo County Zoning Map identifies the proposed park as Urban and Built‐Up Land. Therefore, no impacts associated with the Williamson Act contract would occur. 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))?

No impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL FIRE’s) Land Cover Map, the project site does not contain any land designated forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts associated with the forest land or timberland zoning would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

No impact. According to CAL FIRE’s Land Cover Map, the project site does not contain any land designated forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss or conversion of forest land would occur. 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?

No impact. Based on the above, the project site does not contain any land designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), forest land, or timberland. Therefore, no impacts associated with the conversion of Farmland or forest land would occur.

FirstCarbon Solutions 17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is 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?

Environmental Evaluation

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is located on the existing Central Park in the City of San Mateo, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying nonattainment and attainment areas for each criteria pollutant within the Air Basin. The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1‐hour and 8‐hour ozone, 24‐hour small particulate matter

(PM10), annual PM10, and annual respirable particulate matter (PM2.5).

To address regional air quality standards, BAAQMD has adopted several air quality policies, and in September 2010, BAAQMD adopted their final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2010 Clean Air Plan identifies how the Air Basin would achieve compliance with the state 1‐hour air quality standard for ozone and how the region will reduce ozone from transporting to other basins. A project would

18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process.

The project is consistent with the existing community park use, and would not result in a substantial intensification from the underlying mobile and population assumptions contained in the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Additionally, the project would not result in a substantial unplanned increase in population, employment, or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or emissions, so it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 Clean Air plan. As addressed in Impacts 3b) through 3e) below, the project would not violate air quality standards, result in a cumulative contribution of a non‐attainment pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollution concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures AIR‐1. Thus, the project would not conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, with mitigation, impacts associated with conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the 2010 Clean Air Plan would be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This impact relates to localized criteria pollutant impacts. Potential localized impacts would consist of exceedances of state or federal standards for PM2.5, PM10, or carbon monoxide (CO). Particulate matter emissions (both PM10 and

PM2.5) are of concern during project construction because of the potential to emit fugitive dust during earth‐disturbing activities. CO emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on‐road vehicle congestion. Regional construction and operational impacts are not addressed in this section, but are addressed in Impact 3c).

Short‐term Construction Impacts Construction Fugitive Dust

During construction, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be generated from site grading and other earth‐moving activities. The majority of this fugitive dust will remain localized and will be deposited near the project site. However, the potential for impacts from fugitive dust exists unless control measures are implemented to reduce the emissions from this source. Exhaust Emissions would also be generated from the operation of the off‐road construction equipment.

BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. Instead, BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by BAAQMD are implemented for a project, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant.

As required by Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, the project would implement the best management practices (BMPs) recommended by BAAQMD. Therefore, with mitigation, short‐term construction impacts associated with violating an air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less than significant.

FirstCarbon Solutions 19 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

MM AIR‐1 The following Basic Construction Emission Control Measures shall be included in the project design and implemented during construction:

a. All active construction areas shall be watered at least two times per day. b. All exposed non‐paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least three times per day and/or non‐toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non‐paved surfaces. c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d. All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. e. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. f. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. h. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. i. The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the HARD regarding dust complaints. HARD and the construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Long‐term Operational Impacts Operational CO Hotspot CO emissions from project‐related traffic would be the greatest pollutant of concern at the local level, since congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high, localized concentrations of CO.

BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine whether a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when subsequent site‐specific CO dispersion modeling is necessary.

BAAQMD considers a project’s local CO emissions to be less than significant if the following screening criteria are met:

 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or

20 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or

 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below‐grade roadway).

The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) serves as the Congestion Management Authority (CMA) for San Mateo County, including San Mateo, and implements a Congestion Management Program (CMP) for future transportation needs. As indicated in Section 16, project is consistent with the applicable Congestion Management Plan, thereby satisfying the first screening criteria. No intersections impacted by the project experience intersection traffic volumes of 44,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the CO screening criteria. Furthermore, the adjacent roadways are not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Based on the above, long‐term operation impacts associated with violating an air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less than significant. 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)?

Less than significant impact. Non‐attainment pollutants of concern include ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified thresholds of significance, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. The analysis considers construction and operation period impacts separately, as described below.

Short‐term Construction Impacts A preliminary screening method is provided in BAAQMD’s 2010 Guidelines for construction‐related impacts associated with criteria air pollutants and precursors. The preliminary screening is used to indicate whether a project’s construction‐related air pollutants or precursors could potentially exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The construction of the project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality if the following screening criteria are met:

1. The project is below the applicable screening level size (Table 1).

2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction.

3. Construction‐related activities would not include any of the following: a) Demolition activities inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing; b) Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases;

FirstCarbon Solutions 21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

c) Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site), (not applicable to high density infill development); d) Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e) Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards [cy] of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

Table 1: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes

Construction‐Related Project Percent of Land Use Type Screening Size Project Size Screening Size City Park 67 acres 16.3 acres 24.3% Source: BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines.

As shown in Table 1, the project does not exceed the screening size for construction‐related criteria air pollutants and precursors. The demolition of the existing Self Help for the Elderly building would be in conformance with the BAAQMD District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. Additionally, the project would not exceed the 10,000‐cy screening threshold for soil import or export during construction, and therefore, would not trigger the need for additional analysis to determine the project’s potential significance, and would have a less than significant impact in regards to construction related criteria pollutants and precursors.

According to the screening method analysis in Table 1, the construction emissions for this project are less than significant. However, to ensure a full disclosure in accordance with CEQA guidelines, the project’s construction emissions were quantified using CalEEMod and compared to BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The construction emissions modeling included emissions associated with construction worker vehicles, off‐road construction equipment, and material delivery and haul trucks. The haul truck emissions associated with material export activities were quantified using ARB’s on‐road emissions inventory model, EMFAC2014. Table 2 presents the project’s annual and average daily construction emissions.

Table 2: Construction Emissions

Air Pollutants (tons/year)1

Parameter ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Demolition 0.04 0.43 0.02 0.02 Site Preparation 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.01 Grading 0.03 0.56 0.02 0.01 2017 Building Construction 0.42 3.36 0.21 0.19 2018 Building Construction 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

22 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Table 2 (cont.): Construction Emissions

Air Pollutants (tons/year)1

Parameter ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Paving 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.01 Architectural Coating 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.00 Total Emission (tons) 1.51 4.69 0.27 0.25 Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 10.09 31.34 1.78 1.64 Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 All air pollutant concentrations are in terms of tons per year unless otherwise stated. 2 Calculated by converting total tons to total pounds and dividing the total pounds by the total (i.e., 299) working days of construction for the duration of construction (2017–2018).

Calculations use unrounded totals. lbs = pounds ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A) BAAQMD 2010

Table 2 shows the project’s daily construction emissions and compares them with the significance thresholds. As shown in Table 2, the project’s average daily construction emissions over the entire construction period are below the recommended thresholds of significance. Therefore, this impact with respect to construction emissions is less than significant.

Long‐term Operational Impacts Generally, long‐term operational emissions could result from project‐related traffic and through the routine use of maintenance equipment. BAAQMD’s 2010 Guidelines provide guidance and screening criteria for determining if a project could potentially result in significant air quality impacts. As shown in Table 3, the project would not result in operational‐related air pollutants or precursors that would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. For example, the operational criteria pollutant screening size for a city park is 2,613 acres. The project is well below BAAQMD’s screening threshold, indicating that ongoing project operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity of air pollutants. Therefore, long‐term operation impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

FirstCarbon Solutions 23 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Table 3: Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Screening Level Sizes

Operational Criteria Project Percent of Land Use Type Pollutant Screening Size Project Size Screening Size City Park 2,613 acres 16.3 acres 0.62% Source: BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines.

According to the screening method analysis in Table 3, the operational emissions for this project are less than significant. However, to ensure a full disclosure in accordance with CEQA guidelines, the project’s daily operational emissions were quantified using CalEEMod and compared to BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Table 4 presents the project’s daily operational emissions.

Table 4: Operational Emissions

Pollutants (lbs/day) 1

Operation ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Area 17.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile 0.40 0.72 0.01 0.01 Total Operational Emissions 17.63 0.72 0.01 0.01 Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Daily operational emissions represent the maximum daily emissions from summer and winter emissions.

Table 4 shows the project’s daily operational emissions and compares them with the significance thresholds. As shown in Table 4, the project’s daily operational emissions are below the recommended thresholds of significance. Therefore, this impact with respect to operational emissions is less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This impact addresses whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to asbestos, construction‐generated fugitive dust (PM10 and

24 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

PM2.5), construction‐generated diesel particulate matter (DPM), operational‐related TACs, or operational CO hotspots.

BAAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be any facility or land use that includes members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. If a project is likely to be a place where people live, play, or convalesce, it should be considered a receptor. It should also be considered a receptor if sensitive individuals are likely to spend a significant amount of time there. Examples of receptors include residences, schools and school yards, parks and play grounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. Playgrounds could be play areas associated with parks or community centers. As a community park, the project itself is a sensitive receptor. Additional sensitive receptors near the project site include existing residences that border the project site.

Air quality problems arise when sources of air pollutants and sensitive receptors are located near one another. Localized impacts to sensitive receptors generally occur in one of two ways:

 A (new) source of air pollutants is located close to existing sensitive receptors.  A (new) sensitive receptor is located near an existing source of air pollutants.

To address both of these types of impacts, BAAQMD has established as part of its 2010 Guidelines the following health risk and hazards significance thresholds, as shown in Table 5. These thresholds were adopted for the purpose of this analysis.

Table 5: BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis

Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard Acute Hazard PM2.5 Scenario (in a million) Index Index (mg/m3) Individual Impact 10 1 1 0.3 Community Cumulative Impact 100 10 10 0.8 Source: BAAQMD, 2012a.

The following analysis evaluates whether the project would result in construction or operation‐period impacts to sensitive receptors. In general, because the 16.3‐acre project site is already developed as a park, and the project includes redesign and enhancement of the existing uses, the ongoing operation of the park would not result in the creation of new sources of pollutants.

Short‐term Construction Impacts Asbestos According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur (U.S. Geological Survey 2011), there are no such areas in the project area. Therefore, development of the project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos.

FirstCarbon Solutions 25 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Additionally, the project would include the demolition of an existing structure that currently houses Self Help for the Elderly to make room for the proposed Community Event Building. Demolition of existing buildings and structures would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structure and the associated disturbance of asbestos‐containing material (ACM) generated or handled during these activities. The rule addresses the national emissions standards for asbestos along with some additional requirements. The rule requires the Lead Agency and its contractors to notify BAAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos‐containing materials are potentially present. All ACM found on‐site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of asbestos‐containing materials. Therefore, projects that comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 would ensure that asbestos containing materials would be removed and disposed of appropriately and safely. By complying with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, thereby minimizing the release of airborne asbestos emissions, demolition activity would not result in a significant impact to air quality. In addition, the project would be required to comply with regulations in order to ensure proper abatement of any asbestos during the demolition process, which would further reduce any impacts.

Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions from grading, trenching, or land clearing activities can create nuisances and localized health impacts. As addressed in Impact 3b), the project would not exceed the threshold of significance for PM10 and PM2.5 because the appropriate dust control measures would be implemented during project construction through inclusion of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, as recommended by BAAQMD.

DPM and PM2.5 As discussed in the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines, construction activity using diesel‐powered equipment emits DPM, a known carcinogen. A 10‐year research program demonstrated that DPM from diesel‐ fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long‐term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. Moreover, the current methodological protocols required by ARB when studying the health risk posed by DPM assume the following: (1) 24‐hour constant exposure, (2) 350 days a year, (3) for a continuous period lasting 70 years.

The majority of heavy diesel equipment usage would occur during the development of the expanded and updated park facilities. Heavy diesel equipment usage would occur over a brief duration within the estimated 13‐month construction timeline. Residents located adjacent to the project site and within the vicinity would be exposed to construction contaminants only for the duration of construction. This brief exposure period would substantially limit exposure to hazardous emissions. This brief exposure period is substantially less than the 2‐year exposure period typically assumed for health risk analysis for small construction projects. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact from exposure to construction‐generated DPM.

26 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Long‐term Operational Impacts The project is not a land use known to generate TACs in substantial quantities; therefore, risks to adjacent receptors from the project would be less than significant. The project would result in the construction of a sensitive receptor land use. The CBIA v BAAQMD Supreme Court opinion invalidates requirements to assess the impact of existing emission sources on new sensitive receptors for CEQA purposes. Therefore, long‐term operation impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less than significant impact. Generally, land uses associated with the generation of odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, and agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.

Diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds would be emitted during project construction, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site, and thus, should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts associated with the creation of objectionable odors would be less than significant.

FirstCarbon Solutions 27 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4. 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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. 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? 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 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?

Environmental Evaluation

This section evaluates potential effects on biological resources that may result from project implementation. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on results from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database searches (as cited in Appendix B), the reconnaissance‐level biological survey, and the Biological Resources Analysis (BRA) completed by FCS.

28 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

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?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Special‐status plant and wildlife species typically occur in undeveloped areas. Although less likely, it is also possible for them to occur within developed areas. The project site, in part, has characteristics of land that has been developed or disturbed, including buildings, disturbed soils and the presence of non‐native plant species on‐site. Furthermore, the site is an existing active park used by the public. The project site is situated within San Mateo City, a developed urbanized landscape.

The BRA for the project site was completed on July 8, 2016 by FCS biologist Ashley Laor, in which existing biological conditions were documented and an analysis of the habitat’s potential to sustain special‐status species was conducted. No special‐status plant species were found or are expected to occur on‐site. The vegetation on‐site consists of non‐native landscaped grass lawns with scattered mature native and non‐native trees. Tree species observed during the survey include Redwood trees, Oaks, Palms, Gum, Pine, Magnolia, Cherry, and Maple trees.

During the Survey wildlife species observed on‐site include ground squirrels, and common avian species including Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), house finch, (Carpodacus mexicanus), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). The park also contains a Japanese garden containing a pond with koi fish.

Based upon the types of habitat that each special‐status wildlife species occupies, and on observations made during the July 8 2016 site survey, each wildlife species was evaluated for its potential to occur within the project site. It is not likely that special‐status species would use or inhabit the site because of the absence of suitable habitat requirements and overall location. However, if special‐status species were found on‐site, impacts would be potentially significant.

Potential impacts on special‐status migratory birds that could result from tree removal, the construction and operation of the project include the destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and the abandonment of nests with eggs or young birds prior to fledging. Impacts on special‐status bat species could result from increased noise due to project construction and operation, or through a reduction of habitat. If these species were found to be present, impacts to these species would be significant. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO‐1a would reduce impacts to federally listed species, migratory and nesting raptors protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to less than significant. MM BIO‐2 would reduce impacts to special‐status bat species to less than significant.

MM BIO‐1 Nesting Birds and Raptors

To prevent impacts to MBTA‐protected birds, nesting raptors, and their nests, removal of trees will be limited to only those necessary to construct the proposed project.

 If any tree removal is necessary, then it will occur outside the nesting season between September 1 and February 14. If trees cannot be removed outside the

FirstCarbon Solutions 29 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

nesting season, pre‐construction surveys will be conducted 3 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests.  If an active nest is located during pre‐construction surveys, USFWS and/or CDFW (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest. Construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the agencies deem disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet around an active raptor nest and a 50‐foot radius around an active migratory bird nest) or alteration of the construction schedule.  A qualified biologist will delineate the buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone will be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.

MM BIO‐2 Bat Mitigation

To ensure that there will be no biological concerns associated with these species, a bat survey shall be conducted between March 1 to July 31 by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to the removal of any trees or buildings. If no bat roosts are detected, then no further action is required if the trees and buildings are removed prior to the next breeding season. If removal is delayed, then an additional pre‐demolition survey shall be conducted 30 days prior to removal to ensure that a new colony has not established itself. If a colony of bats is found roosting on‐site, then the following mitigation will be implemented to reduce the potential disturbance:

 If maternity roosts are identified during the maternity roosting season (typically May to August), a qualified biologist shall determine appropriate buffer zones and roosts must remain undisturbed, until the qualified biologist has determined the young bats are no longer roosting. If roosting is found to occur on‐site, replacement roost habitat (e.g., bat boxes) shall be provided on‐site for roosting sites removed. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No impact. The project site is located on developed land in a highly urbanized area; there are no sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. Because the project lacks riparian habitat, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.

30 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation 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?

No impact. There are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters on or near the project site. Therefore, the project would not remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur. 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 wildlife nursery sites?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is not within a designated wildlife movement corridor or nursery site. The project site is located in a predominately urban area, and the project site is itself is a developed area with artificial maintained habitats. Adjacent properties contain buildings, paved parking areas, streets, and landscaping that represent barriers to wildlife movement and dispersal. Implementation of the project would not interfere with the movement of any fish or wildlife species or impede the use of native nursery sites or corridors.

As discussed in section 2.4.a above, the project may have adverse effects on nesting birds and raptors, including special‐status birds and bat species protected under the MBTA. Impacts to these species would be significant. MM BIO‐1a and MM BIO‐2 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Based on the City’s goals and objectives for Central Park, enhancement of the 5th Avenue Streetscape will require some tree removal from the Urban Park Forest along 5th Avenue to improve access and visible transparency into the park. However, trees would be replaced in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code including sections 13.52, Heritage Trees; 23.40, Site Development; and 27.71, Landscape for Planning Applications. Following the provisions in Chapter 13.52: Heritage Trees Ordinance, MM BIO‐3—which includes measures for trees on‐site to be preserved in Central Park—will reduce impacts to heritage trees to less than significant.

MM BIO‐3 13.52: Heritage Trees

13.52.025 Tree Protection and Preservation. Any person who owns, controls, has custody or possession of any real property within the City shall use reasonable efforts to maintain and preserve all heritage trees located thereon in a state of good health, pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.

(a) Any application for discretionary development approval for real property or for any other Development Project shall be accompanied by a signed statement by the property owner or authorized agent which discloses whether any heritage

FirstCarbon Solutions 31 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

trees exist on the property and describes on the plans associated with the application the location of each such tree, its species, trunk size and drip line area. In addition, the location of any tree within thirty feet of the area proposed for construction that is within the public right‐of‐way shall be shown on the plans and identified by species. (b) With regard to any tree required to be identified under section (a) above, (hereafter “protected tree”), any exterior construction work associated with any Development Project performed within a radius measured from the trunk center equal to ten times the diameter of the tree trunk measured at 4’ above grade shall require the preparation and submittal of a Tree Protection Plan for review and approval by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any permit for a Development Project. The Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist. (c) A Tree Protection Plan shall at a minimum include the following requirements: (1) Prior to the commencement of any Development Project, a chain link fence shall be installed at the drip line of any protected tree which will be affected by the construction and shall prohibit the storage of any construction materials, equipment or other materials inside the fence. The drip line shall not be altered in any way that would increase the encroachment of the construction. (2) Prohibit excavation, grading, soil deposit, drainage and leveling within the drip line unless approved by the City Arborist. (3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals, paints, solvents or other materials within the drip line or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the drip line. (4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs and ropes to any protected tree. (5) Utility service and irrigation lines shall be located outside of the drip line when feasible. (6) Include provision for the retention of the services of a certified arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of protected trees. The arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which will pose a potential threat to the health of the protected trees or whenever any work needs to be done within the drip line of such tree. (7) Include other provisions as deemed necessary by the City Arborist to preserve the protected tree and insure compliance with those provisions. (8) Require that the City Building Official be notified whenever any damage or injury occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. (9) Contain the signature of the property owner and building permit applicant. (10) Tree Protection Plan Review. The Tree Protection Plan described in Section (c), above, shall be reviewed by the City Arborist. If the plan is sufficient to prevent harm to protected trees from reasonably foreseeable construction activities, it shall be approved and related building permits otherwise

32 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

complete shall issue. (Ord. 2007‐1 § 3; 2007; Ord. 2005‐3, § 1, 2005; Ord. 2004‐6, § 1, 2004). 13.52.040 Removal—Permit. Any person or entity desiring to remove or prune one or more heritage trees shall apply to the Director for a permit. The application for a permit shall be made on forms provided for this purpose and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the trees to be removed or pruned by types and the reason for removal or pruning of each. The request for such a permit may only be made by the owner or owners of the property on which the trees are located or for pruning by an adjacent property owner of heritage tree limbs extending onto that adjacent property, after notice of the application to the property owner where the heritage tree is located. Heritage tree permits are valid for six months from date of issue. Extensions may be authorized by the Director. The applicant may submit an arborist’s report with the permit application to show cause for removal or pruning. Pruning permit applications shall include pruning specifications prepared by a certified arborist.

The Director shall review each application and shall consider and determine the following in rendering a decision:

(a) The condition of the tree or trees with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services; (b) The necessity to remove the tree or trees in order to construct any proposed improvements to allow reasonable economic enjoyment of the property. (c) The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree on erosion, soil retention and diversion or increased flow of surface waters. (d) The number of trees existing in the neighborhood on improved property and the effect the removal would have on the established standard of the area and property value. (e) The number of trees the particular parcel can adequately support according to good arboricultural practices.

In reviewing applications, the Director shall give priority to those based on hazard or danger of disease. (S)he may refer any application to another department, committee, board or commission of the city for a report and recommendation or may require the applicant to supply a certified arborist’s report. (Ord. 2007‐1 § 3; 2007; Ord. 2005‐3, § 1, 2005; Ord. 2004‐6, § 1, 2004; Ord. 1998‐8, § 3, 1998; Ord. 1997‐24 § 6, 1997; Ord. 1984‐7 § 4, 1984; Ord. 1968‐35 § 3 (part), 1968: prior code § 65.53).

13.52.050 Reforestation. Permits for heritage tree removal, removals without permits and causing damage to heritage trees shall require replanting conditions in accordance with the following guidelines:

FirstCarbon Solutions 33 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

(a) Trees removed under jurisdiction of a planning approval pursuant to Chapter 27.71 shall conform with the replacement conditions specified in the planning approval. (b) Trees removed with a valid tree removal permit shall be replaced in accordance with the direction of the Director. Replacement direction shall include direction on the location and species of the replacement tree. Tree replacement shall be one 24” box size tree approved by the Director, for each tree removed. (c) Trees removed without a valid tree removal permit shall be replaced by a 48” box size tree for each tree removed. Enhanced replant conditions may be imposed if it is determined by the Director that the value of the removed tree was significantly greater than that of a 48” box tree. In such cases, the determination of the level of replacement shall be within the discretion of the Director, but shall not exceed the actual tree loss as determined by the Replacement Value. In addition to the requirements of this subsection, penalties under Section 13.52.055 or other sanctions allowed by law may be imposed for removal of heritage trees without a permit. (d) Where the Director determines that replanting is not feasible and/or appropriate, e.g., sufficient trees exist on‐site, the Director (1) may require that a payment of equal value to the cost of the purchase and installation of the replacement tree(s) be made to the City tree planting fund or (2) may place other conditions on the permit which are of equal value to the cost of the purchase and installation of the replacement tree(s). (e) Any person causing damage to a heritage tree shall be required to take such steps as may be required by the Director to assure the future vitality of the tree, including costs of treatment and/or construction of protective barriers, or if the Director determines that the damage is so great that the tree is no longer reasonably sustainable, replacement of the damaged tree per subsection (c), above (Ord. 2007‐1 § 3; 2007; Ord. 2005‐3, § 1, 2005; Ord. 2004‐6, § 1, 2004; Ord. 1998‐8, § 3, 1998; Ord. 1997‐24 §§ 3 and 6, 1997; Ord. 1989‐36 § 1, 1989; Ord. 1984‐7 § 5, 1984; Ord. 1968‐35 § 3 (part), 1968: prior code § 65.54). 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?

No impact. The project site does not fall within the boundary of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans; therefore, no impacts would occur.

34 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. Cultural Resources and Tribal 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? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources? f) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.?

Environmental Evaluation

This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Northwest Information Center (NWIC), National Register of Historic Places (NR), California Register of Historic Resources (CR), California Historical Landmarks List (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database, and a pedestrian survey and assessment of the site by Architectural Resources Group (ARG). The record search results, NAHC correspondence, Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE), and paleontological report are provided in Appendix C.

FirstCarbon Solutions 35 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Northwest Information Center Results from the NWIC indicate that nine resources (P‐41‐000010, P‐41‐000011, P‐41‐000111, P‐41‐ 000418, P‐41‐001224, P‐41‐002077, P‐41‐02270, P‐41‐002358, and P‐41‐002397) are within a 0.5‐ mile radius of the project area. Of the nine recorded resources, four (P‐41‐000010, P‐41‐000011, P‐41‐000111, and P‐41‐002397) are prehistoric in nature, and one (P‐41‐000010) may have been located within the project boundaries. The nature and exact location of this resource are unclear from the records search results; however, it is recorded as having been leveled by previous construction activity. In addition, 28 area‐specific survey reports (S‐003125, S‐003142, S‐004936, S‐005779, S‐006425, S‐010159, S‐011396, S‐012033, S‐013753, S‐014766, S‐017993, S‐024339, S‐025029, S‐025174, S‐025777, S‐026045, S‐029657, S‐030586, S‐033061, S‐036877, S‐038063, S‐039104, S‐043317, S‐043322, S‐044519, S‐044520, S‐044522, and S‐046663) are on file with the NWIC for the 0.5‐mile search radius.

Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) On October 27, 2016, FCS sent a request to the NAHC to review its sacred lands file search and to provide a list of Native American Representatives who may be interested in providing additional information on potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR’s) within the project area. FCS received a response from the NAHC indicating that no sacred sites were listed as present in the project area. The letter also included a list of five Native American representatives. Letters including a map and project details were sent to all representatives for information purposes on December 1, 2016. As of this date, no responses have been received. Correspondence with the NAHC and the Native American representatives may be found in Appendix C‐1.

Historic Resource Evaluation To prepare the HRE report for Central Park, ARG completed a site visit to examine and photograph the subject property on May 4, 2017; reviewed existing documentation and the previous NR evaluation of the park; and conducted archival research at a wide array of local, county, and digital repositories. ARG prepared an HRE report that included descriptions of the park’s existing conditions and landscape features; a historical summary of the park and its surroundings; and an evaluation of the historical significance of the park and individual buildings, structures, and component landscapes with regard to the CR criteria.

The HRE report concluded that Central Park is eligible for listing in the CR under Criterion 1 as a historic designed landscape consisting of the city’s first municipal park and sports facility. Its period of significance spans from 1922 when it was completed to 1936 when San Mateo’s park facilities were expanded with the construction of Beresford Park. The Japanese Garden is eligible for individual listing in the CR under Criterion 3 as the work of master landscape architect Nagao Sakurai and as a significant example of a pond‐style, stroll garden that was the predominant form of Japanese Gardens constructed as public parks in the 1960s. Its period of significance dates to 1966, the year it was constructed. Both Central Park and the Japanese Garden retain their integrity for listing in the CR, and as such, are historical resources under CEQA. A copy of the HRE prepared by ARG may be found in Appendix C‐2

36 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

UCMP Paleontological Records Search On April 27, 2017 consulting paleontologist Dr. Ken Finger performed a records search on the UCMP database for the San Mateo Central Park project in Santa Clara County. According to the part of geologic map of Brabb et al. (1998), the surface of the area of the project site consists of Holocene alluvial fan & fluvial deposits (Qhaf). Located within the SW quadrant of the half‐mile search perimeter is a Pleistocene unit (Qpaf), consisting of alluvial fan and fluvial deposits, that most likely extends into the subsurface of the project site. San Mateo Central Park is located well within the area mapped as Holocene and it is therefore unlikely that the Pleistocene layer will be encountered in project‐related excavations. A records search on the University of California Museum of Paleontology that focused on Pleistocene vertebrate localities in San Mateo results are 13 localities, none of which are within or near the half‐mile search radius. A copy of Dr. Finger’s report may be found in Appendix C‐3.

Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The significance of an historical resource is considered to be “materially impaired” when a project demolishes or materially alters the physical characteristics that justify the determination of a historic resource’s significance (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)). The proposed project has the potential to impact Central Park through the relocation or demolition of contributing features to the resource. These include the relocation of the flagpole to the north end of the central event lawn and the removal of the southern section of the curved pathway leading to the southern gate at El Camino Real to construct three new tennis courts.

The relocation of the flagpole within the central event lawn would have a less than significant impact, because the new location is compatible with the original character, setting, and use of the original location. It will maintain its physical and visual connection with the central event lawn. However, the removal of the segment of the pathway would demolish or materially impair a physical characteristic that justifies the determination of a historic resource’s significance. As such, this is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL‐1 and MM CUL‐2, described below, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

The proposed project has the potential to impact Central Park through the construction of new buildings, structures, and small‐scale features, such as fencing, throughout the park. Except for the proposed tennis courts, as described above, these individual components of the proposed project, such as the new plaza, picnic pavilion, grandstand, and play area, will be located within the footprint of non‐contributing features proposed for demolition within the park. The use of these new features also is compatible with the historic use of Central Park. However, the final design of these features, including the scale, style, and construction material, is currently unknown. They could be designed such that they affect the park’s setting such it no longer retains a sufficient level of integrity to be eligible for listing in the CR. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL‐3, described below, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

FirstCarbon Solutions 37 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

The proposed project will leave the Japanese Garden in place with no physical alterations to this designed landscape. Therefore, it will not directly impact this resource. Proposed new construction in its vicinity, including the new picnic pavilion and Central Park Plaza, will impact the setting of the garden. However, these proposed project components will be less than one‐story tall and will replace existing buildings within the park. Since the existing tennis courts/underground garage and community center are not visible within the walled garden and new construction will have a low profile, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on this historical resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Records search results from the NWIC indicate that nine recorded cultural resources lie within 0.5 mile of the project site. Of these resources, four are prehistoric, and consist of habitation debris, a partially intact burial, and lithic scatters including flaked stone tools of obsidian, Olivella spire‐lopped beads, a Haliotis pendant, mortars, pestles, and bone tools. Resource P‐41‐000010 is recorded as being located within the project site; however, aside from noting that it consists of habitation debris, the exact nature and location are unclear from the records search results. Furthermore, the resource has been recorded as having been leveled during prior construction activity at the site.

While the proposed project will largely involve renovations and modifications to previously built and disturbed areas, the close proximity of four known prehistoric archaeological sites increases the probability that subsurface excavation of undisturbed areas may encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Such resources could consists of, but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Accordingly, this would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL‐4, described below, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Dr. Finger’s report concluded the surface of the area of the project site consists of Holocene alluvial fan & fluvial deposits. San Mateo Central Park is located well within the area mapped as Holocene and it is therefore unlikely that the Pleistocene layer will be encountered in project‐related excavations. A records search on the University of California Museum of Paleontology that focused on Pleistocene vertebrate localities in San Mateo results are 13 localities, none of which are within or near the half‐mile search radius.

Neither a paleontological walkover survey of the site prior to construction or paleontological monitoring during earth‐disturbing activities are warranted due to the absence of any potentially fossiliferous sedimentary deposits on or adjacent to the project site and the probability that the Pleistocene layer is too deeply buried to be impacted by project‐related excavations.

Nevertheless, construction crew should be informed that Pleistocene vertebrate fossils, including large mammals, have been found elsewhere in the County and the unlikely disturbance of the Pleistocene layer could result in a significant impact to paleontological resources, if encountered.

38 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Paleontological resources may include, but are not limited to, fossils from mammoths, saber‐toothed cats, rodents, reptiles, and birds. Accordingly, implementation of MM CUL‐5, described below, is recommended to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources that may be discovered during Project construction. With the incorporation of mitigation, impacts associated with paleontological resources would be less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the project area. Resource P‐41‐000111 is a partially intact burial site; however, it is located approximately 0.26 mile west of the project site. There is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. In the event of the accidental discovery of recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 1506435; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. In the unlikely event human remains are discovered, implementation of MM Cul‐6 would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. e) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources?

Less than significant impact. A review of the California Register of Historical Resources, local registers of historic resources, and the NAHC sacred lands file failed to identify any listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the Project. As such, no recorded TCRs will be adversely affected by the Project and therefore associated impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (d) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 ?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No tribal cultural resources were identified as part of the NAHC sacred lands file search or through subsequent outreach and correspondence with Native American representatives. While the Project site is situated within a region historically occupied by the Ramaytush Costanoan speaking Native American peoples and archaeological sites are known to be present in proximity to the site, Potential impacts to undiscovered resources relating to Ramaytush cultural heritage would be minimized with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL‐4 and CUL‐6 which require proscriptive treatment procedures in the unlikely circumstance that sensitive artifacts or human remains are found. Thus, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, associated impacts would be less than significant.

FirstCarbon Solutions 39 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

MM CUL‐1 Prior to project implementation, Central Park should be recorded to standards established for the National Park Service’s Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS), as detailed below.

A. A HALS written report will be completed to document the physical history and description of the historical resource, the historic context for its construction and use, and its historic significance. The report will follow the standard outline format described in the Historic American Landscape Survey Guidelines for Historical Reports in effect at the time of recording. The report will be prepared by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History. B. Large‐format, black and white photographs will be taken, showing the pathway segment to be demolished and the other park’s other contributing features, including buildings, structures, small‐scale features, circulation features, and vegetation. The photographs will be taken and processed for archival permanence in accordance with the HABS/HAER/HALS Photography Guidelines in effect at the time of recording. The photographs will be taken by a professional with HALS photography experience. The photographer will work with the architectural historian preparing the written report and City of San Mateo staff to determine the number and type of views required. C. Existing drawings, where available, will be reproduced on archival paper. If existing drawings are not available, a full set of measured drawings depicting existing conditions will be prepared. The drawings will be prepared in accordance with the Historic American Landscape Survey Guidelines for Drawings in effect at the time of recording. The drawings will be prepared by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architecture or Historic Architecture.

The HALS documentation, including the report, large‐format photographs, and drawings, will be submitted to the San Mateo Parks and Recreation Department, San Mateo Public Library, and the San Mateo County Historical Association. The documentation will be prepared in accordance with the archival standards outlined in the Transmittal Guidelines for Preparing HABS/HAER/HAL Documentation in effect at the time of recording. A professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History will manage production of the HALS documentation.

MM CUL‐2 The Central Park Master Plan will include interpretive features located throughout the park. The circulation features of the park will be documented as part of this public interpretation program, as follows:

A. Interpretive materials, such as an informational plaque depicting the original design of the pathways and discussing the importance of the circulation features, will be prepared as part of a public interpretation program and be displayed in a location with high public visibility near the pathway segment to be removed.

40 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

B. The public interpretation program will be developed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History.

MM CUL‐3 A project that has been determined to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties can generally be considered to be a project that will not cause a significant impact. A professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History will assess each project component resulting from the proposed project for conformance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation once it has been designed and proposed for implementation. If a project component is not found to be in conformance with the Standards, it will be redesigned to eliminate objectionable or damaging aspects of the project (e.g., redesigning new construction such that it not replicate contributing features to the park, such as the Kohl‐era fencing; retaining rather than removing a character‐defining feature; or reducing the size or massing of a proposed building, structure, or feature).

MM CUL‐4 Due to the moderate potential for undiscovered archaeological resources within the project area, an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology should be present during the initial phase of ground disturbance in previously undeveloped areas of the project site. This may be followed by regular periodic or “spot‐check” archaeological monitoring as determined by the archaeologist, but full‐time monitoring is not required at this time.

In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100‐foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until the archaeologist has evaluated the situation. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive report complete with methods, results, and recommendations, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered resources. The report shall be submitted to the City of San Mateo, the Northwest Information Center, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), if required.

MM CUL‐5 In the event that fossils or fossil‐bearing deposits are discovered during construction activities, excavations within a 50‐foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted

FirstCarbon Solutions 41 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

or diverted. The project contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [1995] standards), evaluate the potential resources, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The plan shall be submitted to the city of San Mateo for review and approval prior to implementation, and the applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the plan.

MM CUL‐6 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 must be followed. In this instance, once project‐related earthmoving begins and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Stanislaus County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:  The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;  The descendent fails to make a recommendation; or  The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

42 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

FirstCarbon Solutions 43 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Evaluation

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.

Less than significant impact. There are no known active faults or Alquist‐Priolo earthquake hazard zones (PRC Sections 2621 to 2630) in the City of San Mateo. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 2 miles to the west of the City of San Mateo, while the Hayward Fault is located approximately 14 miles northeast of the project site. Despite its proximity, there is no evidence of significant ground rupture in the area. The inactive faults that are present are older features that do not exhibit indications of recent motion. There is no reason to expect a recurrence of movement along these fault traces. Therefore, impacts related to ground rupture would be less than significant.

The significant earthquakes that occur on or near the project site are generally associated with crustal movement along well‐defined, active, fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system, which regionally trend in a northwesterly direction. The San Andreas Fault, which generated the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906, is located approximately 2 miles to the west of the City of San Mateo. The Hayward fault is located approximately 14 miles northeast of the project site. Despite its proximity, there is no evidence of significant ground rupturing in the City during the last one million years. No active or potentially active faults underlie the City of San Mateo, based on published geologic maps. The project site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo Fault Study Zone and surface evidence of faulting has not been observed. However, because of its proximity to the San Andreas Fault Zone, Hayward Fault Zone, and other active faults, the Planning Area may experience severe ground shaking during a seismic event. However, these inactive faults are older features that do not exhibit indications of recent motion. There is no reason to expect a recurrence of movement along these other fault traces; therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less than significant impact. Many of the geologic processes active in San Mateo are related to earthquake‐induced ground shaking. Ground shaking is common throughout the San Francisco Bay Area associated with activity on the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults.

Ground shaking from an earthquake is amplified and lasts longer in unconsolidated or water‐ saturated soils, such as bay mud, than in harder bedrock. Ground shaking can cause structural failure of buildings; damage to exterior parapets, ornamentation and large windows, and separation of buildings from their foundations as well. According to the Shaking Amplification during Earthquakes Map provided by the City of San Mateo General Plan Vision 2030, the project site is located in a Moderate Shaking Area. The project would be required to design and construct any new

44 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation structures in strict accordance with current standards for earthquake‐resistant construction such as continuous load paths that transmit forces to the foundation (CBC 1604.9). Compliance with the enhanced California Building Code requirements would ensure that impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less than significant impact. Ground failure is a secondary effect of ground shaking and can include landslides, liquefaction, lurching, and differential settlement. Buildings can tilt or sink, utility lines can rise to the surface, and levees can fail. If soils are poorly consolidated, the ground can subside.

Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces generating various types of ground failure. Liquefaction occurs when saturated and poorly consolidated granular material is shaken during an earthquake and is transformed into a fluid‐like state. The potential for liquefaction must account for soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. If soils are poorly consolidated, the ground can subside. San Mateo faces the potential for liquefaction of man‐placed fill, bay mud sediments, and alluvium in areas built on filled bay mud.

According to the Slope Stability & Liquefaction Map provided by the City of San Mateo General Plan Vision 2030, a small portion northeast of the project site is categorized for moderate liquefaction potential. However, compliance with all applicable state and local requirements would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death posed by liquefaction. Furthermore, the project does not include any residential development. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?

No impact. Problems of slope instability are most prevalent in the hillside areas where landsliding has occurred previously and where landslide deposits can be found. Landslide failures have also occurred in areas where slopes were modified by grading. Excavating too steeply, undercutting slopes, or placing fills or structures on unstable slopes can potentially cause a landslide.

The project site consists of developed flat land with limited topographic relief and lacks any geological features typically associated with landslides such as hillsides and riverbanks. Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

No impact. The project site is currently developed, and the existing development stabilizes and retains soils on the project site while preventing erosion from occurring. Therefore, there would be no impact with operational impacts associated with erosion.

FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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?

Less than significant impact. Based on the following evaluation, the project would not be located on a geological unit or unstable soil, or a soil that would potentially become unstable as a result of the project.

Landslide As previously addressed in Impact 6a.iv, the site consists of developed flat land with limited topographic relief that lacks any geological features typically associated with landslides such as hillsides and riverbanks. The fact that the proposed project does not include any structures for human occupancy would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death posed by earthquake‐induced landslides. Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur.

Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading occurs as a response to earthquake‐induced ground shaking and is the movement of ground material toward a free face (i.e., a cliff or stream bank). Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat‐lying material toward an open face such as an excavation, channel, or body of water. Generally, this movement is due to failure along a weak plane and may often be associated with liquefaction. As cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil displace laterally toward the open face. Cracking and lateral movement may gradually propagate away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Lateral spreading potential is highest in areas underlain by soft, saturated materials, especially where bordered by steep banks or adjacent hard ground. Lateral spreading is possible along the banks of water drainage courses that are not constrained in concrete channels and/or by other protective measures.

Based on the information above, the project site is developed flat land with limited topographic relief. Therefore, no impacts associated with lateral spreading would occur.

Subsidence Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials. Subsidence is most often attributed to human activity, mainly from the removal of subsurface water. The project does not include any removal of subsurface water; therefore, there would be no impacts associated with subsidence.

Liquefaction According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a small segment of the project site is located in an area of very low susceptibility to liquefaction. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant.

46 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Collapse The project site is not underlain by natural or man‐made subsurface features that are typically associated with collapse, including mining or extraction operations or karst topography. Therefore, no impacts associated with collapse would occur. 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?

Less than significant impact. Expansive soils, also known as shrink‐swell soils, refer to the potential of soil to expand when wet and contract when dry. According to the Web Soil Survey, the project site contains three main soil types: Orthents, Urban land, and Urban land‐Orthents cut and fill complex, none of which exhibit shrink‐swell characteristics consistent with expansive soils. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with expansive soil. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No impact. The project’s restroom facility would connect with the municipal sewer system and would not require septic tanks or similar alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impacts associated with septic tanks or similar alternative wastewater systems would occur.

FirstCarbon Solutions 47 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. 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 any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Environmental Evaluation

Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less than significant impact. During project construction, greenhouse gases would be generated by construction activities such as site clearing/preparation and grading/earthwork, the operation of heavy‐duty construction vehicles, materials and debris hauling, asphalt paving, and construction worker vehicle trips. These emissions would be considered short‐term in duration. BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related greenhouse gas emissions; however, BAAQMD does recommend that lead agencies quantify, disclose, and provide a significance determination for construction‐related greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the operational emissions threshold of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) is used for this analysis to determine significance of the project’s construction‐related emissions.

Construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. As previously addressed, the timing for construction is unknown, although it is assumed that the project would be implemented in phases over the course of a number of years. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, it was assumed that the project would be built out within a 13‐month construction schedule. The construction phases included demolition, site preparation, site grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Table 6 shows the greenhouse gas emissions estimated to be generated by project construction.

Table 6: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Construction Activity MT CO2e Demolition 40 Site Preparation 13 Grading 114

48 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Table 6 (cont.): Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Construction Activity MT CO2e Building Construction 422 Paving 17 Architectural Coating 3 Total 608 Source: FCS 2016.

During project construction, approximately 608 MT CO2e would be emitted, which is less than the

1,100‐MT CO2e threshold applied for the purposes of this analysis. Therefore, short‐term construction impacts associated with the generation of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.

Long‐term Operational Impacts A preliminary screening method is provided in BAAQMD’s 2010 Guidelines for operational greenhouse gases. The preliminary screening is used to indicate whether a project’s operational greenhouse gases could potentially exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance of 1,100 MT CO2e. Based on BAAQMD screening criteria, the operation of a city park use would result in a less than significant impact if the project size is less than 600 acres. The project would be less than the screening level of 600 acres: the 16.3‐acre project site currently rests on the existing Central Park in the City of San Mateo. Therefore, long‐term operational impacts associated with the generation of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.

Although the project would be considered less than significance according to BAAQMD’s screening thresholds, for the purpose of full disclosure pursuant to CEQA and BAAQMD guidance, this analysis quantified the project’s long‐term operational GHG emissions. Table 7 presents the project’s annual operational GHG emissions.

Table 7: Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Operational Source (MT CO2e/yr) Area <1 Energy <1 Mobile 111 Water 1 Waste 20 Total 131 Operational Threshold 1,100

FirstCarbon Solutions 49 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Table 7 (cont.): Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Operational Source (MT CO2e/yr) Exceeds Thresholds? No Note: MT CO2e/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Source: FCS 2016.

As shown in Table 7, the project’s long‐term annual operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold of significance. Therefore, this impact with respect to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less than significant impact. As provided by BAAQMD’s 2010 Air Quality Guidelines:

BAAQMD’s approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.

Thus, if a project is less than BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for greenhouse gases (GHGs), it stands to reason that the project would not substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions.

Construction emissions are generally considered separately from operational emissions because construction emissions are a short‐term or single‐time event, while operational emissions would be continuous over the life of the project. The 2010 Air Quality Guidelines do not contain a threshold for construction greenhouse gases, but it recommends quantification and disclosure of these emissions. As described in Impact 7a), the project’s construction emissions were estimated at 608

MT CO2e, which is less than BAAQMD’s 1,100‐MT CO2e threshold for operational emissions and, thus, would not conflict with California legislation. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization.

Additionally, as previously addressed, BAAQMD recommends the use of preliminary screening to indicate whether a project’s operational greenhouse gases could potentially exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance of 1,100 MT CO2e. Based on BAAQMD screening criteria, the operation of a city park use would result in a less than significant impact if the project size is less than 600 acres. The project would be less than the screening level of 600 acres. Furthermore, as shown in Table 7, the modeled annual operational emissions would be less than BAAQMD’s threshold of significance.

50 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Accordingly, operational emissions would not conflict with AB 32. Therefore, impacts associated with conflicting with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases would be less than significant.

FirstCarbon Solutions 51 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8. 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? 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?

52 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Environmental Evaluation

Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less than significant impact. During both construction and operation of the project, hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be handled, transported, used, and disposed of both on and off the project site. These materials include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum‐ based products used to operate and maintain construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles as well as household cleaning products, degreasers, paints, and fertilizers for ongoing maintenance. Many of these hazardous materials would be considered universal wastes, which are generally defined as hazardous wastes common to businesses and households that pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes. Federal and state regulations allow universal wastes to be handled and disposed of with less stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, and these wastes typically do not have to be managed as hazardous waste.

Any handling of hazardous materials would be limited in both quantity and concentrations. Hazardous materials associated with operation and maintenance of construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles would be securely stored in the construction staging area within the project site, with only the required amounts of these materials being stored on‐site. The actual quantity of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials that would be permitted to be stored on the project site would be determined by (1) the individual hazardous characteristics of the material, (2) manufacturer guidelines, (3) and the applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Additionally, any handling, transporting, use, or disposal would comply with the requirements of all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. This project is a continuation and expansion of the existing recreational land use activities, and implementation of the project would not result in increased impacts related to hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. 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?

Less than significant impact. As previously addressed in Impact 8a, any handling, transporting, use, or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Both construction and operation of the project would adhere to the policies and programs, and compliance with these requirements would reduce the opportunity for the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Thus, the potential threat to public health and safety or the environment from upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

FirstCarbon Solutions 53 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less than significant impact. The project site is located approximately 0.72 mile east of Aragon High School, 1.07 miles south of San Mateo High School, and 0.70 mile north of Borel Middle School. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts associated with the emitting or handling of hazardous materials 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?

No impact. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List). As part of the Cortese List, DTSC also tracks “Calsites,” which are mitigation or brownfield sites (sites previously used for industrial purposes) that are not currently being remediated by DTSC. Before placing a site on the backlog, DTSC ensures that all necessary actions have been taken to protect the public and environment from any immediate hazard posed by the site. A review of the Cortese List indicates that the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact associated with hazardous materials sites would occur. 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?

No impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and San Carlos Executive Airport, located approximately 4.4 miles north and 4.9 miles south of the project site, respectively. The project site is not located within the airport land use plan for either facility. Therefore, no impacts associated with public airport safety hazards would occur. 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?

No impact. There are no private airstrips located on or near the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts associated with private airstrip safety hazards would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No impact. The project would not substantially increase or alter vehicular circulation to and from the park, and therefore would not impair or impede emergency vehicle circulation in the surrounding area. Additionally, the three streets that would most be affected by the project— 5th Avenue, 9th Avenue and Laurel Avenue—are not identified as emergency evacuation routes. As a result, the nominal amount of new trips that the project may generate is not anticipated to impede response in the event of a regional emergency. Therefore, no impacts associated with emergency access would occur.

54 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation 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?

No impact. According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) maps, the project site is not susceptible to wildland fire. The project would not introduce any new uses or activities expected to increase the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire. Therefore, no impacts are associated with wildland fire.

FirstCarbon Solutions 55 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. 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 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? 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?

56 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Environmental Evaluation

Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Short‐term Construction Impacts Less than significant impact. Construction of the project would require earthwork activities that could potentially allow surface runoff to convey on‐site sediments and pollutants off‐site, thereby potentially affecting local downstream waterways by degrading water quality. Since the project would disturb one or more acres of land, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ or 2009‐0009‐DWQ General Permit). Construction activities subject to the 2009‐0009‐DWQ General Permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. San Mateo County is required by law to prevent contamination of stormwater by utilizing clean work practices, and inspecting businesses and construction activities. The City of San Mateo has implemented the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) in a countywide effort to prevent stormwater pollution. The SMCWPPP would generally contain a site map(s) showing the construction perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre‐ and post‐ construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways.

The SMCWPPP must also include project construction features designed to prevent erosion and protect the quality of stormwater runoff, known as best management practices (BMPs). Construction BMPs may include but are not limited to stabilize construction entrances, straw wattles on embankments, and sediment filters on existing inlets. Additionally, the SMCWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for “non‐visible” pollutants, should the BMPs fail. Section A of the Construction General Permit lists all elements that must be contained in the SMCWPPP.

The preparation, implementation, and participation with both the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit and the Construction General Permit, including the SMCWPPP and BMPs, would reduce project construction effects on water quality to acceptable levels. Therefore, short‐term construction impacts associated with water quality standards would be less than significant.

Long‐term Operational Impacts Less than significant impact. The parking garage located on‐site would be remodeled with the same number of spaces; an increase would be possible in the future if the City decides to add another level to the garage. The number of tennis courts on‐site is being reduced from the existing six lighted courts, to three lighted courts. As such, the project includes a stormwater drainage system designed to collect and retain a vast majority of all surface runoff on the project site. Design and estimated performance of the stormwater drainage system would be subject to review and approval

FirstCarbon Solutions 57 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration by the San Mateo County Public Works Agency and would be subject to issuance of a Flood Control District stormwater permit prior to construction of the project.

Therefore, long‐term operational impacts associated with water quality standards would be less than significant. 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?

Less than significant impact. The project would be required to incorporate water conserving fixtures and landscaping. All landscaped areas would also be required to meet the provisions established by the San Mateo County Landscape Water Conservation Guidelines and the California Water Efficient Landscapes Ordinance. Additionally, the project would comply with the landscaping principles and programs of the Bay‐Friendly Coalition, which in part encourages practices that conserve water resources and lessens the impact of conventional landscape practices on the environment. Thus, the project would limit its use of domestic water supplies, of which groundwater makes up only a small percentage of overall sources.

Similar to the existing conditions, the project site would remain predominately covered with pervious areas, including landscape areas and natural surface trails. Coupled with the proposed bio‐ retention areas, these pervious areas would promote retention of stormwater runoff, allowing percolation of these waters into subsurface soils and eventually into the subbasin below. This project is a continuation of existing recreational land use activities; as such, implementation of the project would not result in increased impacts related to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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?

Less than significant impact. The project would not alter the course of a stream or river, nor would it substantively alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site such that the potential for erosion or siltation would be increased. In compliance with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, the project includes a stormwater drainage system designed to collect and retain a vast majority of all surface runoff on the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with the potential for on‐ or off‐site erosion and/or siltation would be less than significant. 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?

58 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation flooding on‐ or off‐site would be increased. The site would continue to operate as a public park. Therefore, impacts associated with the potential for on‐ or off‐site flooding would be less than significant. 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?

Less than significant impact. The project would maintain and enhance the existing use of the site as a public park and would not substantially alter the amount of drainage flowing from the site into the existing storm drain system. Therefore, impacts associated with the creation or contribution of runoff water would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less than significant impact. The incorporation of bio‐retention areas sufficient to accommodate stormwater runoff in compliance with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit would ensure that water quality is protected to the extent feasible. Therefore, impacts associated with degradation of water quality would be less than significant. 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?

No impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06081C0158F, the project site is not located within the 100‐year floodplain. Additionally, while an increase in park visitors is expected following development of the project, the project does not include any residential or other habitable uses, and thus would not place housing within the 100‐year floodplain. Therefore, no impacts associated with placing housing within a 100‐ year flood hazard area would occur. h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No impact. As previously addressed in Impact 9g, the project site is not located within the 100‐year floodplain. Therefore, no impacts associated with placing structures within a 100‐year flood hazard area would occur. 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?

Less than significant impact. San Mateo’s levees are structurally stable, and the probability of their failure is very low. However, failure could result from a major earthquake or severe storm conditions. Should a failure occur at high tide, property could be inundated up to an elevation of 4.7 feet (San Mateo datum/7.06 ft. NGVD), or a maximum water depth of about 6 feet in the lowest areas of the Shoreview neighborhood.

Six dams affect the City of San Mateo: Crystal Springs, San Andreas, Laurel Creek and East Laurel Creek (2), and Tobin Creek in Hillsborough.

FirstCarbon Solutions 59 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

No local dams pose a threat to flooding of the project site. Compliance with the San Mateo County building code, which mandates that all structures on the project site be designed to withstand the forces of a “design flood,” provides further assurance that there would not be a significant risk of flooding. Therefore, the impacts of exposure of people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding including flooding because of the failure of a levee or dam would be less than significant. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No impact. Tsunamis, or seismically generated sea waves, are rare in California, due to the lack of submarine earthquake faults. An Alaskan generated tsunami would have to reach a height of at least 20 feet at the Golden Gate to overtop San Mateo’s levees with a minimum run‐up of 5 feet at higher high tide. The highest tsunami affecting the area during the last 120 years had a height of 7.4 feet at the Golden Gate, causing a 2‐foot run‐up along the San Mateo shoreline. The City of San Mateo’s General Plan does not discuss a threat of any seiche or mudflow in the project area. Therefore, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would have no impact.

60 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 10. 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 communities conservation plan?

Environmental Evaluation

Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?

No impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying areas. The project site is a continuation of an existing park and would not expand into any neighboring areas or affect the community. Therefore, no impacts associated with the physical division of an established community would occur. 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?

No impact. The Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool for implementing the policies of the General Plan and addresses physical development standards and criteria for the City. The City of San Mateo’s zoning map categorizes the project site as “Parks Open Space/Public Facilities.” Since the project site is a continuation of an existing park, it would not conflict with any of the City’s land use plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, no impacts would be associated. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?

No impact. As addressed in Impact 4f, the project site does not fall within the boundary of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans. Additionally, no such plans are currently being prepared that would include the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with an adopted habitat conservation plan would occur.

FirstCarbon Solutions 61 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. 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?

Environmental Evaluation

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?

No impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) is the primary state law concerning mineral resources. Mineral resources including sand, gravel, and building stone are important for commercial purposes. Because of the economic importance of mineral resources, SMARA limits new development in areas with significant mineral deposits. SMARA also requires State Geologists to classify specified areas into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs).

The San Mateo County General Plan’s Conservation Element does not identify any mineral resources of value in the project area. There are no known mineral deposits or extraction sites on the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of mineral resources of value would occur. 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?

No impact. According to the SMARA Office of Mine Reclamation Map, there are no areas within the City of San Mateo that have been identified as containing mineral deposits of regional significance. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of mineral resources would occur.

62 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Environmental Evaluation

This Noise Impact Analysis, detailed below, has been prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) to determine the off‐site and on‐site noise impacts associated with the proposed San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update.

Characteristics of Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

FirstCarbon Solutions 63 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A‐weighted decibel scale (dBA) was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A‐weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound energy of time‐varying noise over a sample period and the Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period.

Existing Conditions Noise monitoring locations and measurements are described in detail in Appendix D. The noise measurements were recorded for 15‐minute durations, between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., on Tuesday, July 12, 2016. Average wind speeds during the measurement ranged from 0.7 to 3.2 mph. The temperatures during the noise measurements ranged from 64.7 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit. The primary noise sources in the project vicinity were traffic on El Camino Real, 9th Avenue, and Laurel Avenue, as well as construction and people conversing. The results of the noise level measurements are provided in Table 8.

Table 8: Noise Monitoring Summary

Site Location Description Leq Lmax Lmin ST‐1 Corner of park near playground on El Camino Real 73.2 95.5 51.4 ST‐2 9th Avenue, adjacent to butterfly garden 61.3 85.0 43.4 ST‐3 By building, next to Japanese Garden 63.1 78.2 53.7 Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2016.

Regulatory Framework The project site is located within the City of San Mateo. The City of San Mateo addresses noise in the Noise Element of their General Plan (City of San Mateo General Plan Vision 2030) and in the San Mateo City Charter and Municipal Code (City of San Mateo, 2016).

The City of San Mateo has established Noise Sensitive Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise Environments for residential and non‐residential land uses in the Noise Element of the San Mateo General Plan Vision 2030. The applicable Land Use Category for the proposed project is Parks and

Playgrounds. According to the policies of the General Plan, noise environments up to 65 dBA Ldn are considered “normally acceptable” for new park land use developments. In addition, maximum

64 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation exterior noise should not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the noisiest hour for public park uses. Noise standards for development along El Camino Real are imposed on a case‐by‐case basis consistent with this policy’s guidelines.

The City’s noise performance standards are specified in the San Mateo City Charter and Municipal Code Chapter 7 Noise Regulations. Construction, alteration, repair or land development activities are exempt, under certain provisions, from the noise performance standards provided these activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and to the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. At least one of the following provisions must be met in order to achieve this exemption for construction noise activity: the construction hours maybe restricted if the individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. In addition, if the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA. Any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, hoist, or other appliance, the produces loud or unusual noise is restricted to operate between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

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?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Noise levels in the project area would be influenced by construction activities and from the ongoing operation of the proposed project.

Short‐term Construction Impacts Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the project site (vehicle engine noise, the sound of vehicle doors shutting, etc.). Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance, the effect on longer term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. Therefore, short‐term construction‐related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant.

The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

FirstCarbon Solutions 65 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Table 9 lists typical construction equipment noise levels, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment, the site preparation phase is expected to be the loudest phase of construction.

The site preparation construction phase is expected to require the use of front‐end loaders, compactors, hydraulic backhoes, and haul trucks. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full‐power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Impact equipment such as pile drivers are not expected to be used during construction of this project.

Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax

Specification Maximum Sound Levels Type of Equipment Impact Device? (Yes/No) for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pickup Truck No 55 Pumps No 77 Air Compressors No 80 Backhoe No 80 Front‐End Loaders No 80 Portable Generators No 82 Dump Truck No 84 Tractors No 84 Auger Drill Rig No 85 Concrete Mixer Truck No 85 Cranes No 85 Dozers No 85 Excavators No 85 Graders No 85 Jackhammers Yes 85 Man Lift No 85 Paver No 85 Pneumatic Tools No 85 Rollers No 85 Scrapers No 85 Concrete/Industrial Saws No 90 Impact Pile Driver Yes 95 Vibratory Pile Driver No 95 Source: FHWA, 2006.

66 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Some of the loudest equipment that construction of the proposed project is expected to require includes graders, bulldozers, pavers, concrete mixer trucks, roller compactors, backhoes, and front loaders. A characteristic of noise is that each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, the worst case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area.

The nearest off‐site noise sensitive land use to the project’s construction footprint are the residential land uses south of the project site on 9th Avenue. The closest façade of these residences is located approximately 50 feet from the proposed areas where heavy construction equipment would operate during construction of the proposed tennis courts. At this distance, worst‐case construction noise levels during the loudest phase of construction could range up to approximately 90 dBA Lmax if multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operated simultaneously at the nearest construction footprint area.

Construction, alteration, repair or land development activities are exempt, under certain provisions, from the noise performance standards provided these activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and to the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. At least one of the following provisions must be met in order to achieve this exemption for construction noise activity: the construction hours may be restricted if the individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. In addition, if the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA.

Although there would be single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance from project construction activity, the effect on longer term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. In addition, the analysis above shows that the expected worst‐case noise level during construction would not exceed 90 dBA Lmax at any receptor point outside of the project site. As long as the construction activities occur during the City’s stated restricted hours of operation, the proposed construction activity would comply with the provisions of the municipal code. Therefore, compliance with the restricted hours of construction operations and implementation of the best management noise reduction techniques and practices outlined in Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant.

MM NOI‐1 Implementation of the following multi‐part mitigation measure is required to reduce potential construction period noise impacts:

 The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment have appropriate sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation.  The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion‐engine‐ driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good operating condition and appropriate for the equipment.

FirstCarbon Solutions 67 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

 The construction contractor shall ensure that “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary construction equipment are utilized where such technology exists.  The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on‐site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction‐ related noise sources and noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.  The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.  The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., in excess of 5 minutes).  The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The construction contractor shall conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site.  The construction contractor shall limit all noise producing construction activity, including deliveries and equipment startup and idling, to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and to the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Sundays.

Long‐term Operational Impacts The primary sources of operational noise would be generated by project‐related traffic (off‐site mobile‐source noise) and park visitors using the parking garage, playgrounds, and recreational facilities (on‐site stationary‐source noise) on the project site. A significant impact would occur if the project would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s normally acceptable standard of 65 dB Ldn for new park land use development.

Traffic Noise Impacts Existing noise environment conditions were documented through the short‐term ambient noise measurements conducted on the project site between 10:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 2016. As was observed by the technician at the time of the noise measurement, the dominant noise source in the project vicinity was traffic on El Camino Real. The results show that the areas of the project site where new development is planned are exposed to daily ambient noise levels ranging from 61.3 dBA to 63.1 dBA Leq from the northern to southern boundaries. These noise levels are below the City’s normally acceptable standard of 65 dBA Leq for new park development. The noise measurements did show that for areas of the existing park immediately adjacent to El Camino

Real, existing ambient noise levels range up to 73.2 dBA Leq. However, implementation of the proposed project would not result in development of new park outdoor recreation areas that would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s standards. Therefore, ambient noise levels on the project site are considered acceptable for the proposed land use development, and traffic noise impacts on the proposed project would be less‐than‐significant.

68 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Stationary‐Source Noise Impacts Development of the project would result in new stationary noise sources including noise from park visitors using the parking garage, playgrounds, and recreational facilities on the project site.

Of the on‐site stationary noise sources, noise generated by parking lot activity would generate the highest maximum noise levels. Parking activities, such as people conversing or doors slamming, would typically generate instantaneous noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. However, these activities will occur in the underground parking structure, which would shield such noise from impacting any surrounding noise sensitive land use. Therefore, project‐related parking lot activities would not result in exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of existing standards, nor result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels compared with existing noise levels.

Development of the project would also result in the expansion of existing recreational uses on the project site. However, all park operations must comply with noise performance thresholds established in the City’s Noise Ordinance. In addition, the new proposed uses are not substantial noise generators and park activities must comply with the permissible hours of operation. These stationary noise sources are similar to existing operations and would therefore not result in an exceedance of the existing ambient noise levels at any sensitive receptor in the project vicinity. Therefore, project‐related stationary noise source impacts would be considered less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than significant impact. Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. When assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro‐inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “VdB.” Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). Typical vibration source levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment

Construction Equipment PPV at 25 Feet (inches/second) RMS Velocity in Decibels (VdB) at 25 Feet Water Trucks 0.001 57 Scraper 0.002 58 Bulldozer—small 0.003 58 Jackhammer 0.035 79

FirstCarbon Solutions 69 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Table 10 (cont.): Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment

Construction Equipment PPV at 25 Feet (inches/second) RMS Velocity in Decibels (VdB) at 25 Feet Concrete Mixer 0.046 81 Concrete Pump 0.046 81 Paver 0.046 81 Pickup Truck 0.046 81 Auger Drill Rig 0.051 82 Backhoe 0.051 82 Crane (Mobile) 0.051 82 Excavator 0.051 82 Grader 0.051 82 Loader 0.051 82 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Bulldozer—Large 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Vibratory Roller (small) 0.101 88 Compactor 0.138 90 Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 Vibratory Roller (large) 0.210 94 Pile Driver (impact‐typical) 0.644 104 Pile Driver (impact‐upper range) 1.518 112 Source: Compilation of scientific and academic literature, generated by FTA and FHWA.

Propagation of vibration through soil can be calculated using the vibration reference equation of:

PPV= PPV ref * (25/D)^n (in/sec)

Where:

PPV = reference measurement at 25 feet from vibration source D = distance from equipment to property line N = vibration attenuation rate through ground

According to Chapter 12 of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual (2006), an “n” value of 1.5 is recommended to calculate vibration propagation through typical soil conditions.

70 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2006). The FTA guidelines include thresholds for construction vibration impacts for various structural categories as shown in Table 11.

Table 11: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria

Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate VdB I. Reinforced—Concrete, Steel or Timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered Concrete and Masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non Engineer Timber and Masonry Buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings Extremely Susceptible to Vibration Damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA 2006.

As noted previously, the nearest off‐site noise sensitive land uses to the construction footprint where heavy equipment would operate are the residential land uses on 9th Street whose properties border the project site. The closest façade of these residences is located approximately 50 feet from the proposed areas where heavy construction equipment would operate during construction of the proposed tennis courts. At this distance, worst‐case construction noise levels during the loudest phase of construction could range up to approximately 90 dBA Lmax if multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operated simultaneously at the nearest construction footprint area.

Of the variety of equipment that is expected to be used during construction, the small vibratory rollers that would be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment. These levels would attenuate to approximately 0.04 VdB at the nearest off‐site residential receptor. This is below the industry standard vibration damage criteria of 0.2 PPV for this type of structure, a building of non‐engineered timber and masonry construction (see Table 11).

Therefore, construction‐related groundborne vibration impacts on existing off‐site land uses would be considered less than significant.

Upon completion of construction, the project would not include any permanent sources of groundborne vibrations. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project vicinity to excessive groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, project‐ related groundborne vibration impacts would be considered less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less than significant impact. Significant noise impacts to off‐site receptors would occur if the project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with noise levels

FirstCarbon Solutions 71 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration existing without the project. A characteristic of noise is that a doubling of sound sources with equal strength is required to result in a perceptible increase (defined to be a 3‐dBA increase) in noise level. Implementation of the project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. Therefore, project‐related traffic would not result in a perceptible permanent increase in existing ambient noise levels along any roadway segment in the project vicinity, and project‐related traffic noise impacts on off‐site sensitive land uses would be less than significant.

Development of the project would result in new stationary noise sources, including noise from park visitors using the parking garage, playgrounds, and recreational facilities on the project site. However, as addressed in Impact 12a), the resulting noise levels would not result in a perceptible increase in the daily average ambient noise levels as measured at any sensitive receptor land use in the project vicinity. Therefore, project operational noise would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels compared with conditions 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?

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As addressed in Impact 12a), project‐ related construction activities could result in noise levels of up to 90 dBA Lmax at the closest off‐site receptor if multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operated simultaneously at the nearest construction footprint area. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance, the effect on longer‐term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. Implementation of MM NOI‐1 requiring standard construction noise reduction measures (including restrictions on permissible hours of construction) would reduce short‐ term construction impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. 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?

Less than significant impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport, located approximately 3.8 miles to the northwest. The project site lies outside of the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour of this airport. Therefore, impacts associated with public airport noise would be less than significant. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No impact. There are no private airstrips located in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts associated with private airstrip noise would occur.

72 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 13. 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?

Environmental Evaluation

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)?

Less than significant impact. The project would not include any residential uses, and thus, would not directly induce population growth in the project area. Construction of the project would require a small amount of local construction workers. Similar to the duration of the project construction phase, these construction positions would be short‐term and temporary in nature and would likely be filled through the existing local labor force. Additionally, the project would not construct any off‐ site infrastructure improvements such as a roadway or utility that could indirectly induce population growth. Therefore, impacts associated with the inducement of population growth would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No impact. The project would not displace any existing housing. The project is the continuation of an existing park and does not require any demolition of residences. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people.

FirstCarbon Solutions 73 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No impact. As addressed in Impact 1b, the project does not require displacement of any residents. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of people.

74 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities?

Environmental Evaluation

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: a) Fire protection?

Less than significant impact. The San Mateo Fire Department (SMCFD) provides for the safety, health, and well‐being of all individuals, property, and the environment through a comprehensive range of programs designed to respond to threats from fire hazards. Their primary activity is response to requests for service, particularly medical assistance and structure fires. Other goals and objectives include disaster preparedness and fire prevention through community outreach and public education, training courses, maintenance (roads, station upgrades), and annual inspections of public and private property. The SMCFD responds to over 8,000 emergencies calls annually. The SMFD response time to 90 percent of the calls is 6 minutes and 18 seconds. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating is the recognized classification for a fire department’s or district’s ability to defend against major fires. A rating of 10 generally indicates no protection, whereas an ISO rating of 1 indicates high firefighting capability. The SMCFD has been given an ISO rating of 3.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 53090, the project would pay a fee to offset the increased demand and pay for the additional services. The proposed buildings would be constructed in compliance with local and state fire codes, ensuring the buildings would not result in a new fire hazard at the site. Standard conditions of approval would require the provision of a fire flow analysis to ensure that adequate water pressure and flow rates are available on‐site for firefighting purposes. No additional fire personnel or equipment would be necessary to serve the

FirstCarbon Solutions 75 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration proposed project. The nearest SMCFD fire station to the project site is SMCFD Station 21 (120 S. Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo, California), which is located approximately 0.5 mile to the north. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Police protection?

Less than significant impact. Police protection services within the Planning Area are provided by the San Mateo Police Department, which serves the entire City of San Mateo and borders Foster City, Burlingame, Hillsborough, Belmont, and San Mateo County to the east. The main police station is located at 200 Franklin Parkway in San Mateo and is located approximately 2 miles from the project site. Mutual and automatic aid agreements with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department and the police departments of Foster City, Belmont, and Hillsborough augment the City’s ability to respond to calls in the jurisdictional boundary areas and to emergency events.

Along with automatic response agreements between the surrounding jurisdictions, the City of San Mateo Police Department has a State Mutual Aid Agreement with the County Sheriff to provide services in emergency situations. The San Mateo Police Department is an active participant in the San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Organization. Their collaboration has resulted in an established County of San Mateo Law Enforcement Mutual Aid and Policies agreement. Topics such as pursuit guidelines, child abduction protocol, countywide road block, and homicide protocols are in place that allow different jurisdictional boundary areas to assist each other in critical emergency situations.

Since the project site is already served by the San Mateo Police Department, project implementation would not affect response times to the site. Although an increase in walk‐in park visitors can be expected following development of the project, no new land uses (such as residential or commercial) would be introduced onto the project site that would increase the number of calls for service. Therefore, impacts associated with San Mateo Police Department facilities and response times would be less than significant. c) Schools?

No impact. The San Mateo‐Foster City School District (SMFCSD) operates 20 schools in the cities of San Mateo and Foster City and in an unincorporated area west of San Mateo (the area served by the Highlands School). The district has a total enrollment of approximately 10,000 students. Of the district’s 20 schools, five are designated magnet schools or have programs with no assigned attendance areas. The K–5 magnet schools are Brewer Island Elementary School, Fiesta Gardens International Elementary, North Shoreview Montessori School, and Turnbull Learning Academy. SMFCSD has one magnet middle school, Bayside Middle School for the Arts and Creative Technologies. The elementary‐level magnet schools have no assigned attendance areas, instead drawing students from locations throughout the district on a volunteer basis. Bayside Middle School has an assigned attendance area.

The San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) operates seven high schools (including an alternative college preparatory school), one continuation school, and one adult school in the cities of

76 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

San Mateo, Burlingame, San Bruno, and Millbrae. Classes for the San Mateo Adult School are taught at existing school facilities throughout the district. Classes for Middle College High School are taught on the San Mateo Community College Campus.

The closest school to the project site is the Sunnybrae Elementary School located approximately 0.4 mile from the project site. The Project is a proposed renovation of an existing park; it would not generate any new student populations and so would not have any effect on the adequacy of the school facilities in the area. Since the project does not contribute to the increased student population of the City, no impacts would occur. d) Parks?

Less than significant impact. The project is a revitalization of the current 16.3‐acre park. In addition to the project site, other regional parks located near the project site are the Martin Luther King Junior Park, Harbor View Park, De Anza Historical Park, Hayward Square, Sunnybrae Park, and Concar Park. The City currently manages 3,053 acres of parkland.

Similar to the other 35 existing park facilities in the City of San Mateo, the City would continue to routinely maintain Central Park as well as make any necessary repairs to ensure that the park continues to perform as intended and to prevent physical deterioration. Therefore, impacts associated with the increased use of park and other recreational facilities would be less than significant. e) Other public facilities?

No impact. The project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the project area. Thus, it is expected that the project would not increase the patronage of public facilities such as libraries and community centers, and, therefore, no impact associated with public facilities would occur.

FirstCarbon Solutions 77 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15. 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?

Environmental Evaluation 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?

Less than significant impact. The project involves revitalizing the existing San Mateo Central Park. The project would include a variety of new, improved, and expanded recreational components. Similar to the other existing park facilities in the project area, the City of San Mateo would continue to routinely maintain the park, as well as make any necessary repairs to ensure that the park continues to perform as intended and to prevent physical deterioration. Therefore, impacts associated with the increased use of park and other recreational facilities would be less than significant. 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?

Less than significant impact. As addressed in Impact 15a, the project involves the revitalizing of the existing 16.3‐acre community park. The potential environmental impacts of the project are discussed, evaluated, and identified throughout this IS/MND, and measures are identified where needed to reduce potential effects to less than significant levels. The project would contain two new community event buildings on‐site for public use. These new, one‐story event buildings would total about 5,000 square‐feet and would accommodate large and small group events. Because of this new space, these two event buildings may cause an increased amount of traffic within the park. However, these events would be limited and would not physically affect the park and its surrounding environment.

78 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Environmental Setting

The City of San Mateo General Plan lays out a series of balanced, long‐range, multi‐modal transportation goals and policies intended to provide for an efficient transportation system that minimizes environmental impacts, while also looking out for the safety of its residents. The City’s roadway network is designed to link residential and commercial districts, while serving shorter through traffic needs. Roadway typologies within San Mateo include freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets. The City’s General Plan Policy C 2.1 establishes level of service D as the minimum

FirstCarbon Solutions 79 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration overall roadway performance during peak periods1, although exceptions are made for certain transportation systems such as El Camino Real and Crystal Springs Road.

The Project site is located within the heart of San Mateo and is bound by the El Camino Real to the west, 5th Avenue to the north, Laurel Avenue to the East, and 9th Avenue to the south. The site has a single point of ingress/egress located along 5th avenue to the parking garage. Regional access to the Project site is provided via Highway 101, Highway 92, and El Camino Real. SamTrans bus line 55 and 397 run along El Camino Real, stopping at the intersection of El Camino Real and 9th Avenue less than a quarter mile southwest of the Project site. SamTrans bus line 250 runs along 5th avenue, stopping on 5th avenue west of the El Camino Real, less than a quarter mile west of the Project site. There is a Class II bike lane on Laurel Avenue and Palm Avenue, providing bicycle access to and from the site. There is also a Class III bike lane that provides partial access to the project site along Palm avenue.

There are two airports in the San Mateo area, including the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), located approximately 4.28 miles north, and the San Carlos Airport, located approximately 4.82 miles south of the Project site. The Project site is not located within the established Airport Influence Area for either airport. The Project site is located approximately 1.28 miles from the SFO influence area and 3.4 miles from the San Carlos influence area.

Hexagon Consultants prepared a Traffic Analysis for the Project (Appendix E). The analysis below makes reference to their findings.

Environmental Evaluation

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?

Less than significant impact. As described above, the City’s General Plan Policy C 2.1 established level of service D as the minimum overall roadway performance level during peak traveling periods.

1 City of San Mateo. “Circulation.” City of San Mateo General Plan Vision 2030. San Mateo, n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2016. 2 C/CAG. “Congestion Management Program.” FINAL SAN MATEO COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2015 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County November 2015. The Preparation of This Report Has Been Financed through a Grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the (n.d.): n. pag. County of San Mateo Congestion Management Program. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Web. 5 Oct. 2016.

80 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

The General Plan also includes numerous policies to help ensure that safety and efficient transportation is provided for all users of roadways within San Mateo. According to the Traffic Analysis prepared for the Project, many of the existing uses within the Project site would remain consistent, while the remaining uses would merely be remodeled and reconstructed without any increase in size or scope. The Project proposes to decrease seating within Fitzgerald Park grandstand. There are currently 27 picnic tables in the park, each table comfortably seats six people. The proposed 42 picnic tables in the Master Plan would also seat six people per table. There is also an additional 30–40 movable bistro tables in the plaza, which would comfortably seat two people per table. To summarize:

Existing Seating Proposed Seating 27 picnic tables = approximately 162 people 42 picnic tables = 252 people — 30‐40 bistro tables = 60‐80 people Total Existing: 162 people Total Proposed: Approximately 312‐332 people

This increase in seating could potentially create an increase in the amount of traffic coming in and out of the project site. However, the project anticipates that the majority of people using the park would be local residents from the surrounding neighborhood uses. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation rates, the Project would generate 30 new peak‐hour trips on weekdays and 22 new peak‐hour trips on Saturdays. However, a majority of these trips are anticipated to be generated from residents that live or work near the park who either walk or bike to the Project site. As such, the Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the performance of the circulation system for any travel mode. Thus, impacts to the effectiveness of the transportation system would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less than significant impact. The Project site is located east adjacent to the El Camino Real. The segment of the El Camino Real adjacent to the Project site is a CMP V/C network. The CMP identifies a level of service Standard E for all roadway segments, unless the level of service was F at the time the standard was established. However, the Project is anticipated to reduce the amount of trips generated by vehicle travel and would retain the existing uses of the site. As such, the Project is not anticipated to conflict with the C/CAG’s CMP’s level of service standards. Thus, impacts to the County CMP would be less than significant. 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?

No impact. As described above, the Project would be consistent with the existing uses of the current site. The Project site is not located within the Airport Influence Areas of either the San

FirstCarbon Solutions 81 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Francisco International Airport or the San Carlos Airport. As such, the Project would not affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less than significant impact. Primary vehicle access to the site would be provided along 5th avenue where the reconstructed parking garage is intended to be located. The existing ingress/egress point at 5th avenue would be reconstructed and improved. Primary pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided from eight different access points around the Project site. All access points would be consistent with the existing uses and improved in compliance with City standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less than significant impact. Emergency access would be provided from all access points described in impact question d). The City’s General Plan Circulation element provides guidelines for vehicle emergency access. The Project site would remain consistent with the existing use and therefore would not hinder emergency access to the site. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 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?

Less than significant impact. As described above, the Project site is served by SamTrans bus routes 55, 397, and 250 along the El Camino Real and 5th avenue respectively. There is also one Class II and one Class III bike lane that runs along Laurel Avenue and Palm Avenue respectively. The Project does not propose any improvements to the existing bike lanes that provide access to the site. Additionally, people commuting to the site, whether by car, bus, bicycle or on foot, would not adversely affect the safety or performance of the transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Thus, impacts associated with transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

82 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new c storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 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?

Environmental Evaluation

Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less than significant impact. San Mateo’s Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located at 2050 Detroit Drive since 1935 and is a jointly owned facility. San Mateo owns approximately 75 percent and Foster City owns approximately 25 percent of the facility. The ownership agreement is through a joint powers agreement (JPA) and is included in the Sewer System Management Plan. The San Mateo’s WWTP operate its wastewater treatment plant under an NPDES permit issued by the San Francisco BAY RWQCB. This NPDES permit allows an average dry weather flow rate of 20 million

FirstCarbon Solutions 83 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration gallons per day (mgd), although the actual average dry weather flow rate is currently 12.1 mgd. An average of 7.5 dry tons of biosolids (sludge) is removed from the plant process each day.

The project site currently contains two restroom facilities that require wastewater treatment. As part of the project, these restrooms would be relocated with an addition of one more facility located by the Fitzgerald Baseball Field. The relocation and addition of these restroom facilities would generate a nominal increase in wastewater that would be accommodated by the surplus capacity of the San Mateo’s WWTP. Therefore, impacts associated with exceeding the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB would be less than significant. 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?

Water Treatment Facilities Less than significant impact. The project would be required by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to incorporate water conserving fixtures and landscaping. All landscaped areas would also be required to meet the provisions established by the San Mateo County Landscape Water Conservation Guidelines and the California Water Efficient Landscapes Ordinance. Additionally, the project would comply with the landscaping principles and programs of the Bay‐Friendly Coalition, which, in part, encourages practices that conserve water resources and lessen the impact of conventional landscape practices on the environment. The project would also be required to comply with all applicable water conservation measures set forth by the 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6, Title 24, CCR (Title 24). These water conservation measures are related to bathroom fixtures, landscaping materials, and other characteristics of water consumption and would ensure that the project avoid excessive, uncontrolled water consumption.

Compliance with these mandatory water conservation provisions would ensure that the project’s water demand is similar to existing conditions. Thus, current water supplies are expected to adequately serve the project’s water requirements without the need for new or expanded water treatment, delivery, or storage facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of waste treatment facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities Less than significant impact. As addressed in Impact 17a, the project would relocate and include a new restroom facility that would require connection to the existing sanitary sewer lines surrounding the project site. The relocation and addition of these restroom facilities would generate a nominal increase in wastewater that could be accommodated by the surplus capacity of the San Mateo WWTP. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. 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?

Less than significant impact. As part of the project, the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of these proposed stormwater drainage facilities have already been

84 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation considered when discussing and evaluating the overall project’s potential environmental impacts in this IS/MND. Thus, the proposed stormwater drainage facilities would not result in any individual environmental effects not already addressed. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less than significant impact. As addressed in Impact 17b, compliance with applicable mandatory water conservation provisions would ensure that the project’s water demand is similar to existing conditions. Thus, current water supplies are expected to adequately serve the project’s water requirements without the need for new or expanded water treatment, delivery, or storage facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the adequacy of existing water supplies would be less than significant. 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?

Less than significant impact. The San Mateo WWTP provides sanitary sewer service and wastewater treatment service in the project area. The San Mateo WWTP operates its wastewater treatment plant under an NPDES permit issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. This NPDES permit allows an average dry weather flow rate of 20 mgd, although the actual average dry weather flow rate is currently 12.1 mgd. Thus, the wastewater treatment plant presently has an average dry weather surplus capacity of approximately 7.8 mgd.

The project would include two relocated and one new restroom facility that would require connection to the existing sanitary sewer lines surrounding the project site. The relocation and addition of these restroom facilities would generate a nominal increase in wastewater that could be accommodated by the surplus capacity of the San Mateo WWTP. Therefore, the San Mateo WWTP would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity, and impacts associated with exceeding the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less than significant impact. Recology, a privately owned waste hauler, provides solid waste collection service in the City of San Mateo. Recology offers a variety of residential and commercial services, including trash, recycling, green cans (for clean yard waste), and debris boxes to the City of San Mateo and surrounding unincorporated areas. Under a franchise agreement, solid waste collection, transportation, and disposal services are provided to the City of San Mateo. In addition to serving the City of San Mateo, the franchise provider serves the communities of Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, North Fair Oaks, and La Honda. The franchise provider collects solid waste from the City and hauls it to the San Carlos Transfer Station, where readily visible recyclable materials are separated

FirstCarbon Solutions 85 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration from gross refuse. This facility has a permitted daily capacity of 3,000 tons and currently receives 1,500 to 1,900 tons per day.

After solid waste is collected and sorted at the San Carlos Transfer Station, it is transported to the Los Trancos Canyon (Ox Mountain) landfill, located in Half Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain landfill is permitted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board to receive 3,598 tons per day or 1.3 million tons per year. The landfill’s remaining capacity is 44.6 million cubic yards, which translates to a 12‐year life through 2018. The owner of the landfill has a permit for expansion of the landfill. When the permit expires in 2016, either Los Trancos Canyon would be expanded further or nearby Apanolio Canyon would be opened for fill. Thus, the project’s estimated solid waste generation would equate to only a nominal percentage of the daily permitted capacity at the landfill serving the project area, representing a modest increase to the local and regional solid waste stream. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No impact. Solid waste disposal services must follow all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to the collection of solid waste. The project would be required to comply with all applicable diversion requirements set forth by San Mateo County Construction and Demolition Debris Management Ordinance. This ordinance requires projects to divert from the waste stream at least 100 percent of all inert solids (e.g., asphalt, concrete, rock, stone, brick, sand, soil, and fines) and 50 percent of all remaining construction and demolition waste. As established by the ordinance, a Debris Management Plan would be prepared and submitted to the County for review and approval. This plan would include information regarding the estimated total volume or weight of waste generated by the project and means for diverting waste, including the disposal facilities to be used. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements set forth by the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health, Office of Solid/Medical Waste Management. Further, the project would also be required to comply with all applicable state and local waste diversion requirements, including Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016. Therefore, no impacts associated with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste would occur.

86 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation

Less than Significant Potentially Impact with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of 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?

Environmental Evaluation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than significant impact. The Project would involve the renovation and modernization of facilities in an established City park in downtown San Mateo. The Project site was not determined to have suitable habitat for any special‐status plant or species and it is unlikely that these species would inhabit the site. However, mitigation to protect nesting bird habitat for nesting birds and raptors would be required to avoid potentially significant impacts to Migratory Bird Treaty Act‐protected birds as well as to avoid impacts to special status species bats should roosts be found on‐site or to heritage trees present in the park or on surrounding sidewalks. With the inclusion of recommended mitigation measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐3, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and, overall, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.

FirstCarbon Solutions 87 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx Environmental Checklist and City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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)?

Less than significant impact. The project would involve renovation and modernization of facilities in an established City park in downtown San Mateo. The project would not require a change in the General Plan land use designation applicable to the site and it would be consistent with the City General Plan and its buildout projections. As such, the project does not propose any direct growth in population and thus would not have any cumulative growth‐related impacts. Potentially significant localized impacts to air quality, nesting birds and raptors, bat populations, heritage trees, and construction noise would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR‐1, BIO‐1, BIO‐2, BIO‐3, and NOI‐1. Therefore, with mitigation, the project would not make a considerable contribution to any associated cumulative impact and overall associated impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less than significant impact. Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of recommended mitigation measures would ensure the project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, including affects related to air pollution, seismic and geologic hazards, hazardous materials, flooding and natural disasters, or noise and vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

88 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration References

SECTION 3: REFERENCES

City of San Mateo. 2002. County of San Mateo Ordinance No. 04099. Website: http://www.recycleworks.org/con_dem/or_04099.html. Accessed August 9, 2016.

City of San Mateo. 2010. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. Website: http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/5217. Accessed August 9, 2016.

City of San Mateo. 2016. General Plan Vision 2030. Website: http://www.cityofsanmateo.org /index.aspx?NID=2021. Accessed June 23, 2016.

City of San Mateo. 2016. Central Rec. Center & Park East 5th Ave. 94401. Website: http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/exploreourparks/parks/central/centralpark.html. Accessed June 23, 2016.

FirstCarbon Solutions 89 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of San Mateo–San Mateo Central Park Master Plan Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers

SECTION 4: LIST OF PREPARERS

FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.357.2562 Fax: 925.357.2572

Project Director ...... Mary Bean Project Manager ...... Andrew Hill Environmental Analyst ...... Hannah Carney Environmental Analyst ...... Paul Smallman Environmental Analyst ...... Connor Tindall Editor ...... Ed Livingston GIS/Graphics ...... John De Martino Word Processor ...... Ericka Rodriguez Reprographics ...... Octavio Perez

Hexagon Transportation Consultants—Technical Subconsultant Michelle Hunt, Principal 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, California 95113 Phone: 408.971.6100

Architectural Resources Group—Technical Subconsultant Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: 415.421.1680

FirstCarbon Solutions 91 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3611\36110010\ISMND\36110010 Central Park ISMND.docx THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK