Canada Goose Adaptive
Management Plan
Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Foster City, California
OCTOBER 7TH 2024
Project Initial Study:
2 Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 PURPOSE 5
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION 6
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 6
1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 10
3.1 Aesthetics 10
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 12
3.3 Air Quality 15
3.4 Biological Resources 18
3.5 Cultural Resources 26
3.6 Energy 30
3.7 Geology and Soils 31
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 34
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 36
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 39
3.11 Land Use and Planning 42
3.12 Mineral Resources 43
3.13 Noise 44
3.14 Population and Housing 47
3.15 Public Services 48
3.16 Recreation 49
3.17 Transportation/Traffic 50
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 53
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems 55
3.20 Wildfire 57
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 58
4 1.0 INTRODUCTION
As a result of nuisance issues surrounding Canada geese in the City of Foster City (City), the City plans to implement an Integrated and Adaptive Canada Goose (CAGO [Branta canadensis]) Management Plan (Plan). CAGO have become a nuisance in the City, especially during molting season (generally from early June through August). The number of CAGO within the City has increased over the years and due to several factors most birds have become residents and no longer migrate (move from one region or habitat to another according to the season).
The overall increase of CAGO in the City has resulted in birds utilizing parks, walkways, sports fields, playgrounds, human recreational areas, and beaches. CAGO gaggles (groups of geese) form in select areas around Foster City and this growth in the number of individuals has resulted in a substantial increase in feces. Due to the proximity of parks along the lagoon system that runs through the City, the CAGO excrement is thought to contribute to high levels of Escherichia coli (E.coli) in the water. This has created a potential public health hazard, thereby diminishing the community’s ability to safely enjoy outdoor recreational areas.
Common symptoms of ingesting a pathogenic strain of E. coli include vomiting and diarrhea.1
The damage and hazards caused by Canada geese is described in further detail in the Draft Adaptive Canada Good Mitigation Plan, p. 11:
Geese can damage grass, gardens, and crops by overgrazing, and overgrazing can also contribute to local erosion issues (Gosser et al. 1997, Wehbe 2020). As such, resident CAGO are in increasing conflict within many public places such as parks, athletic fields, and golf courses. Flocks deposit large amounts of fecal material, with one CAGO able to produce an estimated one to three pounds of fecal waste per day. While the amount of feces left behind by CAGO can be a nuisance, it can also be a threat to human health and safety.
Substantial amounts of potentially hazardous feces can accumulate and contaminate waterways quickly (Bedard and Gauthier 1986, Wehbe 2020). The nitrogen present in CAGO feces can contribute to pollution of local water sources and the resulting eutrophication can cause excessive algal growth and reduced water quality (Manny et al. 1994, Gosser et al. 1997, Smith et al. 1999, Wehbe 2020). Additionally, large amounts of CAGO feces can result in high levels of fecal coliforms (e.g., Escherichia coli) and other pathogens in the water, including Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lambia, Legionella pneumophila, Aeromonas hydrophila, Vibro spp., Camplylobacter spp., and Salmonella spp. (Schlater et al. 1981, Liu et al. 1989, Buck 1990, Manny et al. 1994, Feare et al. 1999, Smith et al. 1999, Clark 2003, Converse et al. 2001, Woodruff et al. 2004, Wehbe 2020). The abundance of E. coli in fecal matter is positively correlated with ambient temperature, meaning that potential for E. coli contamination of areas from CAGO feces is highest during the warmer summer months, during the time of year when human recreation, especially water sports, in public parks is also higher (Kullas et al. 2002). A study in Colorado examined E. coli in CAGO feces and isolated bacterial strains associated with human illness in 24.5% of fecal samples collected
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. Fact Sheet on Water Quality Parameters – E.Coli (Escherichia coli).
5 (Kullas et al. 2002). In Chesapeake Bay, a study found that overwintering CAGO increased coliform counts in the estuarine waters, degrading the water quality (Hussong et al. 1979).
Another serious pathogen known to cause respiratory illness in humans, L. pneumophila, was isolated in 6-23% of CAGO feces samples (Liu et al. 1989). Humans can also develop “swimmers itch” (CDC 2023) when swimming in goose-occupied waters, and other stomach illnesses and skin irritations are known to occur when humans contact goose feces.
Swimmer’s itch is caused by a parasite that utilizes geese as hosts and results in a short- term immune reaction that causes mildly itchy spots to form on the skin. As a source of environmental contamination in the form of these pathogens, CAGO may be of general epidemiological concern in areas where they are densely populated (Clark 2003). In addition to human health risks, CAGO have been linked to transmission of disease to cattle from Salmonella spp. (Warnick et al. 2001), which may also be a threat to domestic pets (e.g. dogs walking in city parks). Bacteria that cause respiratory disease in poultry, Bordetella avium, has also been isolated in CAGO (Raffel et al. 2002).
The Plan intends to respond to public safety issues and work towards reducing overpopulation of CAGO within Foster City. Since 2005 the City has performed several management activities to address the increasing CAGO populations; however, to date, no techniques have been shown to be effective. The proposed Plan identifies several non-lethal techniques and methodologies to diminish the presence of CAGO in public parks, specifically along the lagoon. The Plan is to serve as a guide that introduces several CAGO management techniques to be implemented on an as needed basis in seven of the parks in the City. The proposed management practices will be adaptive and involve testing and evaluation of habitat modification and CAGO hazing methodologies to potentially move CAGO to more natural habitats.
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and any additional environmental documentation required for the implementation of the plan, which is known as the project (Project). The City has discretionary authority over the proposed project and has determined that an IS/MND would ensure compliance with CEQA on all environmental issues associated with the Project. With mitigation measures implemented, there would not be a significant effect on the environment.
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this IS/MND is to identify any potential environmental impacts from the Project, the purpose of which is to mitigate conflict between the public and CAGO within City parks.
The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the Project. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist giving an overview of the potential impacts that may result from the Project. Section 3 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, along with justification for the responses provided in the environmental checklist.
6 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
Foster City is a planned community located on the San Francisco Bay on the east edge of San Mateo County. The area was once tidal salt marshes, converted when levees were installed in the late 1800’s and Brewer Island was formed. In the 1960s, a section of Brewer Island was enlarged with engineered landfill creating Foster City. The Project area is surrounded by residential areas and includes the Foster City Lagoon which is connected to San Franciso Bay by intake pipes at the south end and a pumping station at the north end. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the Project areas within the City.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project area is situated in a primarily urban setting within the City’s Park system and mostly composed of managed parks within residential areas.
1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes to identify CAGO management techniques and deployment strategies to be implemented on an as needed basis. Selection criteria used to identify priority parks were based on their proximity to the lagoon system, presence of sports fields used by children, and history of conflicts between human use and CAGO presence. At this time, management of CAGO will focus on seven or 30 percent of the parks in the City: Gull Park, Erckenbrack Park, Marlin Park, Leo J. Ryan Park, Catamaran Park, Edgewater Park, Sea Cloud Park. All the parks included in the CAGO management plan are located along or near Foster City Lagoon, with the eastern portion of Sea Cloud Park enhanced as a wetland restoration area. The proposed management practices will be adaptive and prioritize habitat modification where possible.
Hazing methodologies will be used to deter CAGO from using City parks and the lagoon and encourage CAGO to relocate to more natural habitats where habitat modification within City properties is not possible, effective, or until habitat modification can be completed. A brief description of the proposed methodologies to control CAGO is described in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the Proposed Canadian Goose Management Techniques
Technique Description
Habitat Modification
Habitat will be modified and in select areas native
vegetation will be planted to create fewer desirable areas within City parks for geese to form gaggles. Habitat creation includes planting a variety of shrub species intended to mimic habitat suitable for predators (e.g. coyotes) and in turn less desirable for geese.
Remote Controlled Device (RCD)
Land-based or amphibious remote -controlled devices
(brightly colored device that resembles a canid (dog family) predator), aerial drones or remote -controlled boat will be used. If necessary, a speaker capable of playing sounds (e.g. predator calls) will be used to assist with the deterrent and increase efficacy.
7 Technique Description
Boat Operation for Surveillance and Hazing of CAGO
A small boat would be used to conduct surveillance of and briefly haze CAGO in the lagoon where vehicle or shoreline access are not possible from land . Boats will be used to allow personnel to get closer to CAGO to deploy other
hazing methods or devices as needed . Boat operations are intended to increase hazing effectiveness and will typically be used in combination with another technique during the day or night . City requirements of slow speed (not to
exceed 5mph) with no wake will be followed
Noise Makers
Dynamic noise making devises/speakers with capability of playing natural predator sounds, CAGO distress calls or other irritating sounds when triggered and may be placed on the front of a boat, on a drone or other RCD or placed in a fixed position within the parks and operated remotely.
Trained Conservation Dogs
Trained dogs or a dog team will be used to haze CAGO from within the parks . The dogs would be directed by trained handlers to pursue gaggles of CAGO until the birds take flight and leave the area.
Lasers (handheld)
Lasers (green) will be used to flush geese. Laser use will be restricted to areas immediately surrounding the CAGO and will avoid any non -target species . Lasers would not be directed at the water , will only be directed at the ground and not towards the sky, and will avoid all residential areas.
Lighting
Localized LED lighting such as a fox light would be placed in CAGO nesting areas . Lights would be placed in fixed
positions to deter CAGO from nesting or roosting. Lights would be faced downwards to minimize impacts to non -
target species.
Balloons
Balloons (e.g. mylar) would be secured and mounted to
deter CAGO from nesting or roosting in areas . Balloons would be anchored down.
Fogger
A backpack -style mobile fogger would be used to emit
grape-seed extract into the air up-wind from CAGO that are observed loafing, resting, or foraging within parks.
Addling or Oiling of Eggs
Eggs within CAGO nests would be addled, by vigorously
shaking or by coating in 100% corn oil, puncturing eggshells, or removing eggs from nests completely, to prevent CAGO eggs from hatching.
8 Exhibit 1. Project Area Locations
9 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐
Biological Resources
☒
Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards/Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐
☐
Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities and Service
Systems
☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date: Signed:
10 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
☐ ☐ X ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
☐ ☐ X ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ X ☐
This section provides a description of existing visual conditions near the Project site and an assessment of changes to those conditions that would occur from implementation of the project. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on site reconnaissance.
Effects of the Project on the visual environment are generally defined in terms of the following: a project’s physical characteristics and potential visibility, the extent to which the project’s presence would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment where it would be located, and the expected level of sensitivity that the viewing public may have in areas where project facilities would potentially alter existing views.
The aesthetic quality of a community is composed of visual resources, which are physical features that make up the visible landscape, including land, water, vegetation, and the built environment (e.g., buildings, roadways, and structures).
3.1.1 Visual Distance Zones
The following distance zones (foreground, middle ground, and background) can be used to characterize the dominant visual character from each vantage point and describe views in terms that can be analyzed and compared. The sensitivity of views, which may be modified by the proposed Project, are defined in order to establish thresholds for the analysis of potential visual impacts resulting from the implementation of the project.
11 Foreground Views
These views include elements that can be seen at a close distance and dominate the entire view. Sensitive viewer groups, such as surrounding residents, workers, pedestrians, or regular motorists are most impacted by modified views at this distance.
Middle Ground Views
These views include elements that can be seen at a middle distance and that partially dominate the view.
Background Views
Although background views are part of the overall visual composition of the view, these views include elements that are seen at a long distance and typically do not dominate the view.
3.1.2 Regional Setting
The Project areas are located in urban Foster City and mostly border residential areas with views of inland lagoons. Most views consist of residential areas mixed with park settings and open water. No roads with a view of the Project area are officially designated State or County Scenic Highways.
3.1.3 Aesthetics Evaluation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than significant impact. Although the Project description has a wide range of management strategies, the varying degrees of temporary degradation of neighboring views that would during implementation would be negligible. Equipment and vehicles associated with implementation would be visible to the public. However, activities would not significantly increase from existing park maintenance operations. Additionally, equipment used for implementation are currently viewable along many public roadways throughout the City. Equipment and materials used for management will be staged outside public viewsheds and roadways to the extent feasible. Impact would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact. No roads with a view of the Project area are officially designated State or County Scenic Highways. Therefore, there is no impact.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less than significant impact. The Project will use several techniques that will alter the visual character of the sites, including habitat modification to break up large areas of turf grass
12 with vegetation or rock “islands” or rows and if necessary, replacement with artificial turf.
These changes would change the existing visual character to include less open turf and provide more variety of plantings, but not necessarily degrade the existing visual character.
The use of mylar balloons and/or mylar tape would change the visual character of the parks.
The CAGO Mitigation Plan notes that the duration of effectiveness is likely to be brief if the locations are not varied or these devices are not used in concert with other methods. The CAGO Mitigation Plan also notes that these devices have the potential to negatively affect other non-target birds in the area.
Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1 is proposed to limit the use of mylar balloons and/or mylar tape to a maximum of two weeks of continuous use with a minimum two-week period of non-use. Impacts would be less than significant.
MM AES-1 Use of Mylar Balloons and Mylar Tape. The use of mylar balloons and/or mylar tape at a park shall be limited to two (2) weeks of continuous use followed by a minimum of two (2) weeks on non-use.
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. Equipment and vehicles associated with implementation would be visible to the public. However, activities would not significantly increase from existing park maintenance operations. The use of lasers and LED lighting would be localized, faced downwards, and away from residential areas. Additionally, equipment used for implementation are currently viewable along many public roadways throughout the City and any vehicles traveling to and from the Project locations would be doing so within an hour or so of starting and finishing operations, which is not outside normal hours of travel for the public. Equipment and materials used for management will be staged outside public viewsheds and roadways to the extent feasible. Impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.2 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), ☐ ☐ ☐
X
13 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? ☐ ☐ ☐
X
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))?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐
X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
3.2.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Evaluation
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 Project area is urban and built-up land. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance located within the Project area. The Project would have no impact with respect to conversion of Farmland, and no impacts would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Management activities conducted will occur to existing urban parks and would not change the land use. Therefore, because there will be no change in land use there will be no conversion of agriculture to non-agricultural use and there will be no impact. 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. Management activities conducted will occur to existing urban parks and would not change the land use. Therefore, because there will be no change in land use there will be no rezoning and there will be no impact.
14 d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Management activities conducted will occur to existing urban parks and would not change the land use. Therefore, because there will be no loss or conversion of forest land there will be no impact.
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. Management activities conducted will occur to existing urban parks and would not change the existing environment. Therefore, because there will be no loss or conversion of forest land there will be no impact.
15 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.3 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?
☐ ☐ X ☐
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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)?
☐ ☐ X ☐
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
☐ ☐ X ☐
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ X ☐
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. In this case, the significance criteria established or recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) were used in this assessment. 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 significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
The Project implementation will produce short-term increases to vehicle traffic throughout the City and potentially create a short-term increase of combustible engine emissions into the atmosphere.
3.3.1 Air Quality Evaluation
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. Though the Project will generate criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment under federal and/or state ambient air quality standards, those amounts generated will not obstruct the implementation of the applicable
16 air quality plan. The Project site is located within the City of Foster City, in San Mateo County, where air quality is regulated by BAAQMD. The region is currently designated as nonattainment for state and federal ozone and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) standards, and the state particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) standard. The region is attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards. BAAQMD prepares air quality plans (AQPs) that include projected emissions inventories and accounts for emission reductions strategies to demonstrate how the region will attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards by the given deadlines. BAAQMD recommends that projects consider the following three criteria to determine if a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable AQP.
1. Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? The primary goal of the AQP is to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards.
Projects that would generate regional emissions that do not exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance would also not generate emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. As discussed in Impact b) below, the Project’s construction emissions would not exceed BAAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance on an average daily basis. BAAQMD has provided screening criteria for land use categories to determine the project size at which any criteria air pollutant or precursor threshold of significance may be exceeded.2 The screening criteria for “city park” is 10 acres for construction impacts and 175 acres for operation impacts. The scope and scale of the proposed CAGO Mitigation Plan is significantly less than equivalent to construction of 10 acres of new city park or operation of 175 acres of city park. Therefore, the Project’s emissions would not result in a significant impact and would be consistent with the goals of the applicable AQP.
2. Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP?
Regardless of significance, all projects within BAAQMD’s jurisdiction are required to implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 is included below to include the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures3. By implementing the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, the Project would comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations.
3. Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of AQP control measures?
The Project would comply with all required control measures and rules and regulations
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2023. BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April. Table 4-1. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines- 2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-4-screening_final-pdf.pdf?rev=ac551d35a52d479dad475e7d4c57afa6&sc_lang=en. Accessed 5/3/24.
3 Ibid., Table 5-2. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines- 2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-5-project-air-quality-impacts_final-pdf.pdf?rev=de582fe349e545989239cbbc0d62c37a&sc_lang=en.
Accessed 5/3/2024.
17 required by BAAQMD during operation. Proposed activities include long-term operations that would involve geese management strategies. The Project’s operational activities would not include any special features that would disrupt or hinder implementation of the AQP control measures. Considering the information above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQP. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
No Impact. The proposed Project does not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. 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. Though the Project will generate criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment under federal and/or state ambient air quality standards, those amounts generated will not be a cumulatively considerable net increase over ambient amounts.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. Although sensitive receptors occur in the Project area, the Project is not expected to produce substantial increases in pollutant concentrations than existing levels for park maintenance. The fogger uses grapeseed extract which is an organic product that does not significantly contribute to pollutant concentrations. This would be considered a less than significant impact.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact. The Project is located within a park setting of an urban area where maintenance activities are commonplace. Although grapeseed extract produces an odor objectionable to geese, it is not considered objectionable to humans and is currently being used in park operations. For these reasons, any impact would be less than significant.
18 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.4 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?
☐ X
☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
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?
☐ ☐
X ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐
☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
This section evaluates potential effects on biological resources that may result from Project implementation. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based upon results of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventory of rare and endangered plants, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database searches. In addition, a Habitat Assessment Report for Select Parks in Foster City, CA was completed by Sohcahtoa LLC in 2024. The assessment focused on potentially occurring special-status wildlife species. Several species are known from the region and could occur in suitable habitats in the vicinity but are not expected to be adversely affected by the Project.
19 The Project consists of Foster City in eastern San Mateo County and is mostly urban with the eastern portion of the City bordering San Francisco Bay. There are six vegetation types that occur in the survey area: beach sand, beach, ornamental landscape (lawn and trees), ornamental shrubs, woodland non-native) and urban/developed. Table 2 lists these habitats with the associated cover classes and their acreages.
Table 2. Vegetation at Select Parks in Foster City, CA
Vegetation Type Acres
Beach Sand 1.7
Ornamental
Lawn and Trees-Landscape 26.5
Shrubs 5.7
Woodland 0.4
Urban/ Developed 30.7
Beach Sand: Beach sand habitat occurs at some of the parks surveyed and extends into the Foster City Lagoon. In the survey areas, the beach sand habitat was generally flat, devoid of vegetation, and consisted of fine-grained sand. Beach sand (especially the wrack zone in the foreshore subzone) is potential habitat for sensitive species including the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus); however, due to the level of human activity it is unlikely that this species would use the beach areas.
Ornamental Landscaped: Ornamental landscape vegetation includes areas that contain ornamental plants and lawns and trees. Lawns are all non-native grass species that are regularly maintained by the City. Trees are either widely spaced or more concentrated in sections of the parks. This habitat has a high diversity of non-native landscape vegetation with several tree species, including various species of pine, (Pinus spp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), alders (Alnus spp.), and oaks (Quercus spp.). Ornamental landscaped areas with lawn and trees occur throughout the parks and along the border of the existing urban areas, sports fields, buildings and parking lots. Ornamental shrub habitat includes areas with a large portion of shrub species. Oleander is common in the ornamental shrub areas.
Woodland: Woodland habitat are areas where trees are densely distributed. Woodland areas within the survey area are dominated by a variety of species of pines, eucalyptus and redwood trees.
Urban: Urban areas have been developed or are manmade features. Urban areas are generally devoid of vegetation and include existing buildings, parking lots and sidewalks.
Sports fields with turf or hard surface were also included in the urban category.
20 3.4.1 Biological Resources Evaluation
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 with mitigation. For the purpose of this analysis, special-status species refers to all species formerly listed as threatened and/or endangered under ESA or CESA; California Species of Special Concern; designated as Fully Protected by CDFW; given a status of 1A, 1B, or 2 by California Native Plant Society (CNPS); or designated as special- status by city, county, or other regional planning documents. Federal and state listed threatened and/or endangered species are legally protected under ESA/CESA. The designated special-status species listed by CNPS have no direct legal protection but require an analysis of the significance of potential impacts under CEQA guidelines. Table 3 below lists special-status species potentially occurring in the City.
21 Table 3. Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring Scientific Name Common Name Status Potential for Occurrence BIRDS
Aechmophorus clarkia Clark’s grebe MBTA/BCC Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Aechmophorus occidentalis Western grebe MBTA/BCC Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird MBTA/BCC Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle Eagle act Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Arenaria melanocephala Black turnstone MBTA/ BCC Breeds elsewhere Asio otus Long-eared owl MBTA/ BCC Breeds March 1 to Jul 15 Baeolophus inornatus Oak titmouse MBTA/BCC Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15 Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled murrelet FT Breeds in San Fransico Bay area.
Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence’s goldfinch MBTA BCC Breeds March 20 to Sep 20 Chamaea fasciata Wrentit MBTA/ BCC Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy
plover
FT/-- Species known throughout San
Fransico bay area nesting habitat
nearby. Potential foraging habitat
occurs near the project area.
Chlidonias niger Black tern MBTA/ BCC Breeds May 15 to Aug 20 Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck MBTA/Eagle
Act
Breeds elsewhere
Contopus cooperi Olive-sided
flycatcher
MBTA/BCC Breeds May 20 – Aug 31
Cypseloides niger Black swift MBTA/ BCC Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10 Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine
falcon
MBTA/
delisted
Presumed extant. Species is
known to occur in area and could
use Foster City for foraging,
hunting, and capturing prey;
however, species is not expected
nest in vicinity of project site.
Fratercula cirrhata Tufted puffin MBTA/ BCC Breeds elsewhere Gavia immer Common loon MBTA/ Eagle
Act
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Gavia stellata Common loon MBTA/ Eagle
Act
Breeds elsewhere
Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed tern MBTA/BCC Breeds May 20 to July 31 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa Common
yellowthroat
MBTA/BCC Breeds May 20 to July 31
Haematopus bachmani Black oystercatcher MBTA, BCC Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle MBTA/ Eagle
Act
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole MBTA/ BCC Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25 Larus californicus California gull MBTA/ BCC Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull MBTA/BCC Breeds elsewhere Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit MBTA/BCC Breeds elsewhere
Limnodromus griseus Short-billed
dowitcher
MBTA/BCC Breeds elsewhere
Melanitta fusca White-winged scoter MBTA, Eagle
Act
Breeds elsewhere
Melanitta nigra Black scoter MBTA, Eagle
Act
Breeds elsewhere
Melanitta perspicillata Surf scoter MBTA/BCC Breeds elsewhere
22 Mergus serrator Red-breasted
merganser
MBTA/BCC Breeds elsewhere
Passerculus sandwichensis Belding’s savannah
sparrow
MBTA/ BCC Breeds Apr1 to Aug 15
Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
California brown
pelican
--/SP/MBTA/
Eagle Act
Breeds Jan 15- to Sep 30
Phalacrocoras auratus Double-crested
cormorant
MBTA/ Eagle
Act
Breeds Apr 20 – Aug 31
Phalaropus fulicarius Red Phalarope MBTA/BCC Breeds elsewhere Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked
phalarope
MBTA/BCC Breeds elsewhere
Picoides nuttallii Nuttall’s
woodpecker
MBTA/BCC Breeds Apr 1 – July 20
Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper
rail
FE
Rynchops niger Black Skimmer MBTA/ BCC Breeds May 20 -Sep 15 Selasphorus sasin Allens hummingbird MBTA BCC Breeds Feb 1 to July 15 Sterna antillarum browni California least tern FE/SP Species known throughout the San Mateo County and entire San
Fransico Bay area. Species closest
nesting sites is adjacent to project
area on Bair Island.
Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher MBTA/ BCC Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31 Tringa semipalmata Willet MBTA/ Eagle
Act
Breeds elsewhere
Uria aalge Common Murre MBTA/ Eagle
Act
Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 15
MAMMALS
Reithrodontomys raviventris Salt marsh harvest
mouse
FE Not expected
REPTILES
Masticophis lateralis Alameda Whipsnake
= striped racer
FT Not expected
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT Not expected
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco
gartersnake
FE/SE Not expected
AMPHIBIANS
Rana draytonii California red-legged
frog
FT Not expected
Ambystoma californiense California tiger
salamander
FT Not expected
Rana boylii Foothill yellow-
legged frog
FC Not expected
FISH
Spirinchus thaleichthys Longfin smelt FC/ST Not expected
INSECTS
Euphydryas editha bayensis Baycheckerspot
butterfly
FT Not expected
Icaricia icarioides missionensis Mission blue
butterfly
FE Not expected
Danaus plexippus Monarch butterfly FC No adverse effects
CRUSTACEANS
Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
FT Not expected
23 PLANTS
Acanthomintha obovate
ssp.duttonii
San Mateo
thornmint
FE No adverse effects
Cirsium fontinales var.
fontinales
Fountain thistle FE No adverse effects
Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly
sunflower
FE No adverse effects
Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough
chocolate lily
CRPR No adverse effects
Hesperolinon congestum Marin Dwarf-flax FT No adverse effects Malacothamnus arcuatus Arcuate bush-mallow CRPR Extirpated Pentachaeta bellidiflora White-rayed
pentachaeta
FE No adverse effects
Sueda californica California seablite FE No adverse effects Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
palustre
Point Reyes salty
bird’s beak
CRPR Possibly extirpated
Trifolium hydrophilum Saline clover CRPR Presumed extant Status: Federal Status (determined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service):
FE Federally listed endangered
FT Federally listed threatened
FC Federal candidate
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
BCC Bird of Conservation Concern
State Status (determined by
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife):
SE California state listed
endangered
ST California state listed
threatened
SP California fully protected
special
CRPR California rare plant
rank
Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Site
A plant species potential to occur in the Project area was based on the presence of suitable habitats, soil types, and occurrences recorded by the USFWS, CNPS or CNDDB in the project region, and on findings made during the site survey. Based on the database searches and field investigations, potential habitat suitability was determined to be a low probability for several species, as they could occur in areas adjacent to the Bay. Although these species could occur, the Project is not expected to adversely affect special-status plants due to the implementation of the project occurring in the lagoon and other maintained areas.
Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Site
Based upon the types of vegetation/habitat that each special-status wildlife species occupies, and on observations made during the assessment surveys, each wildlife species was evaluated for its potential to occur within the Project area. Potential habitat suitability was determined for several special-status wildlife species as shown in Table 3 above.
Although several of these species could occur in the Project area, most of these species would not be adversely affected by implementation of the Project. Species that may be
24 affected are mostly limited to birds that could occur in the lagoon and bayside areas that interface with the parks. These species including special-status bird species as well as migratory bird species protected by the MBTA would include several species. Furthermore, due to the City’s various federal and state depredation orders to manage Canada geese, this species would be exempt from protection for the Project.
Project activities could disturb nesting and breeding birds in trees and shrubs in park and lagoon areas. Potential impacts on special-status and migratory birds that could result from the 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. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 would reduce impacts to migratory and nesting raptors protected under the MBTA to less than significant.
MM BIO-1 Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors
1. If Project work is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local native avian species (typically February 15 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 250 feet outside the Project boundaries, where possible) the Project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are found, Project activities may proceed.
2. If an active nest is located during the pre-activity survey, Project activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the Project schedule.
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 areas are not located in sensitive natural communities as identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by CDFW or USFWS. Furthermore, although the Project area does contain aquatic areas and associated vegetation, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian or other sensitive wetland habitats. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
25 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. Although open water and associated vegetation occurs in the Project area and may be regulated under the federal CWA, no adverse effects (e.g. fill) are likely and no impacts 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. Although the Project area offers cover for native wildlife, the Project area’s existing connectivity to surrounding off-site habitats is not expected to be adversely affected by project implementation. As such, wildlife movement would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No impact. Based on the project description, no conflicts are expected to result given that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. 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 area does not fall within the boundary of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans; therefore, no impacts would occur.
26 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
☐ ☐
☐ X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ X ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
☐ X ☐ ☐
For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical resources can include precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. The city is located in an urban area and is largely developed. As the city has been subject to continuous urban development over the past century, any existing archaeological or paleontological resources would likely be located in areas where development has already occurred.
The project sites identified as part of the Management Plan includes:
• Leo Ryan Park. This park includes the Recreation Center is on site. However, as identified in the Recreation Center Rebuild Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by Planning Commission in November 2023, the building has been substantively modified and is not identified as a cultural resource. • Marlin Park. This park is mostly open space with a play area, and a public restroom building on site.
• Gull Park. This park is mostly open space with a play area, and a public restroom building on site.
• Erckenbrack Park. This park is mostly open space with a play area, and a public restroom building on site.
• Sea Cloud Park. Mostly open fields for sports, small play areas, and a public restroom building with snack stand on site. (The Project area does not include the lower elevation enhanced wetland area to the east of the parking lot.) • Edgewater Park. Mostly open fields for sports, small play areas, and a public restroom building on site.
• Boothbay Park. Mostly open fields for sports, small play areas, accessory structures like a gazebo, and a public restroom building on site.
27 3.5.4 Cultural Resources Evaluation
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? No impact. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(3)). For a cultural resource to qualify for listing in the California Register, it must be significant under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion 1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, • Criterion 2: Associated with the lives of persons important in our past, • Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or
• Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to being significant under one or more of these criteria, a resource must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and be able to convey the reasons for its significance (14 CCR Section 4852(c)).
As described above, with the exception of Leo Ryan Park, the project sites under consideration for this Project are public parks with large open space for recreation or sport fields and small restroom facilities on site. Based on the latest DPR form completed for the Recreation Center at Leo Ryan Park, that building is not eligible and would not be considered a historic resource under CEQA. For those reasons, the proposed parks and project sites are not eligible and/or designated on local, state, or national registries as historical resources. There would be no impact to historical resources.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
See response to item c below.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would include a variety of hazing methodologies to deter the geese population on site. Minor physical changes include installation of planters and minor alteration of the open space areas. No physical alterations of existing buildings on any of the sites are currently being
28 considered. Furthermore, as part of the adoption of the General Plan Final Environmental Report (FEIR) in 2015, Foster City has adopted Standard Conditions of Approval (SCOAs) and mitigation measures that are related to cultural resources. These SCOAs are included as mitigation measures to ensure that if archaeological or paleontological deposits or human remains are encountered during excavation or construction activities, appropriate measures would be implemented to reduce potential adverse effects. While the proposed project would not result in substantive ground disturbance activities, the project would be required to implement the same conditions of approval/mitigation measures prior to and during any work that would be ground disturbing.
• MM CUL-01 – Accidental Discovery of Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological: If deposits of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Community Development Director immediately notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the find, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal and other refuse. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the analysis and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological deposits discovered. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the Foster City Community Development Department and the Northwest Information Center. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains. Adverse effects to such deposits shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible (as determined by the City, in conjunction with the qualified archaeologist), the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, avoidance of project impacts on the deposit shall be the preferred mitigation. If adverse effects on the deposits cannot be avoided, such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display;
29 preparation of a brochure for public distribution that discusses the significance of the archaeological deposit; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological material sat a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The City shall ensure that any mitigation involving excavation of the deposit is implemented prior to the resumption of actions that could adversely affect the deposit.
• MM CUL-02 - Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be directed and the County Coroner and the Community Development Director immediately notified. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. The project sponsor shall also be notified. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The project sponsor shall comply with these recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the project sponsor, the Foster City Community Development Department, the MLD, and the Northwest Information Center.
For the reasons mentioned above, the project would result in less than significant impacts to the Cultural Resources with mitigation incorporated.
30 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐
X ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐
☐ X
This section describes the existing energy resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area.
3.6.1 Energy Evaluation
a) Result in impact due to consumption of energy resources? Less than significant impact. The Project is in an urban location and may require some transport of personnel and equipment to the Project area. The Project will not result in wasteful or inefficient energy use because equipment can be securely left in the Project areas overnight and between Project phases, saving on travel fuel. a) Conflict with energy plans?
No impact. The Project will not violate or obstruct any State or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plan; all operations will comply with applicable laws. There will be negligible impact to energy resources.
31 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.7 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. ☐ ☐ ☐
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐
☐ X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐
☐ X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐
☐ X
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?
☐ ☐
☐ X
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?
☐ ☐
☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☐
☐ X
32 3.7.1 Geology and Soils Evaluation
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.
No impact. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that Foster City is not within any fault zones. The proposed Project would involve CAGO management strategies that would not have the potential to increase exposure to fault rupture hazards. No impact would occur.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No impact. The Project would not have the potential to increase exposure to strong seismic ground shaking hazards. No impact would occur.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No impact. Although the USGS indicates that Foster City has susceptibility to liquefaction, the proposed Project would involve CAGO management strategies that would not have the potential to increase liquefaction hazards. No impact would occur.
iv) Landslides?
No impact. The Project area is surrounded by flat relief; there are no slopes that may be susceptible to landslides. No impact would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No impact. Project implementation does involve limited ground disturbance with respect to altering existing planted areas within existing parks. Since all work would be within existing maintenance areas, the Plan is not expected to result in the loss of topsoil in the Project area.
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?
No impact. As mentioned above, Project implementation would not be exposed to these factors.
33 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? No impact. Project implementation does not involve development. 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. Project implementation does not involve development. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact. No paleontological or unique geological resources have been recorded at, or near the Project area. The Project as planned will involve no subsurface excavation other than for altering existing park areas. Ground disturbing activities will be limited to the surface, caused primarily by the operating of machinery on soft surfaces. Additionally, the project as planned will not cause substantial erosion during or after operations. Therefore, there will be no impact.
34 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ X ☐
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
Climate change is a global phenomenon widely considered to result in an average increase in global temperatures, as well as significant changes in other climatic factors such as wind, precipitation, and storm frequency and intensity. The primary factor influencing climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) from both natural and anthropogenic sources. GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and water vapor can be emitted through both natural processes and human activities. GHG potency and its relative contribution to climate change can vary widely, depending on the molecular structure of the GHG and its ability to keep solar radiation from exiting our atmosphere during the lifetime of the molecule. The potency of the GHG is known as its Global Warming Potential (GWP) and is measured relative to the most abundant GHG, CO2, which has a GWP of 1. Other GHGs with high GWP values are methane with a GWP of 28-36, nitrous oxide with a GWP of 265-298, and hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons that can have a GWP in the tens of thousands (EPA 2017).
There are two means for reducing GHGs in the atmosphere: cutting emissions of GHGs and increasing sequestration. In California, there are several significant pieces of legislation seeking to address climate change and GHG emissions:
● Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which addresses total GHG emissions across the State and within various sectors of the California economy, with the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and by reducing emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030.
● Senate Bill (SB) 375, which requires reduction of emissions from automobiles and light trucks.
● Senate Bill (SB) 97, which requires consideration of climate change in all environmental assessments under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
35 Following the passing and implementation of AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was tasked with developing a Scoping Plan, which is to be updated every 5 years.
3.8.1 Greenhouse Gas Evaluation
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. The Project is located within the City of Foster City in San Mateo County, where air quality is regulated by BAAQMD. The Project would generate GHG emissions during management activities similar to normal existing park maintenance operations. These emissions are considered consistent with park operations that are continuous, but in temporary and short-term occasions. Therefore, hazing techniques are not expected to contribute to a significant increase in GHG emissions.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No impact. The City’s 2015 Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes a variety of measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through reductions in energy use, more efficient transportation, reducing waste generation, reducing water use, and education. The activities proposed do not relate to any of the implementation measures included in the CAP. The project as planned is not in conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation of local or state agencies.
36 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.9 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?
☐ ☐ X
☐
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?
☐ ☐ X
☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☐ X
☐
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?
☐ ☐ X
☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 defines Hazardous Materials as any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of person or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:
● Toxic- causes human health effects
37 ● Ignitable-has the ability to burn
● Corrosive-causes severe burns or damage to materials
● Reactive-causes explosions or generates toxic gases
A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous.
If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24 contain technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.
Pursuant to CEQA, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List). As part of the Cortese List, DTSC tracks certain sites that include auto-body facilities, municipal facilities, and schools.
3.9.1 Hazards Evaluation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. Park operations do not typically involve the regular transport, use or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. These activities do involve minor routine transport and handling of hazardous substances, such as diesel and gasoline fuels, lubricants and hydraulic fluids and pesticides. Handling and transportation of these materials could result in the exposure of workers to hazardous materials. However, the Project would not create a significant additional hazard to the public or the environment because it would comply with applicable federal, state and local laws pertaining to the safe handling and transport of hazardous materials. Additionally, all operations will be in accordance with Best Management Practices, such as utilizing designated refueling areas for all machinery and equipment, equipping machinery with spill kits, etc.
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 indicated, the project would involve the minor use of hazardous materials, including diesel fuel and other motor lubricants used during Project activities. The use of these substances is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
38 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. As previously indicated, the project would involve the minor use of hazardous materials, including diesel fuel and other motor lubricants used during Project activities. The use of these substances is not expected to create a significant hazard to schools or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Less than significant impact. According to State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker®, an online hazardous materials database, the Project area does not contain any cleanup sites. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. 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. Foster City is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the San Carlos Airport and approximately 5 miles southeast of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The city is located within Area A of the Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) of the San Carlos Airport4 and SFO5 where requirements for real estate disclosure are mandatory due to potential noise issues. The southernmost portion of the city is located within Area B of the San Carlos Airport AIA, which includes areas within a 9,000-foot radius of San Carlos Airport.
Development projects within Area B of the San Carlos Airport AIA require formal review of proposed projects for potential obstruction issues6. Although the Project may use lasers for geese management, the effects of laser use would not have the potential to create aviation safety hazards for people residing or working in the area. No impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. Although adopted emergency and evacuation plans occur in the vicinity, the Project would not affect these plans. No impact would occur.
4 ESA, 2015. Final Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport. Available at:
https://ccag.ca.gov/plansreportslibrary-2/airport-land-use/, accessed April 22, 2024. 5 City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County, 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available at: https://ccag.ca.gov/plansreportslibrary- 2/airport-land-use/, accessed April 22, 2024.
6 ESA, 2015. Final Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport. Available at:
https://ccag.ca.gov/plansreportslibrary-2/airport-land-use/, accessed April 22, 2024.
39 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
☐ ☐ X
☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
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?
☐ ☐ X
☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☐ ☐ ☐
X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
40 Wastewater is any water that has been adversely affected in quality by human influence.
Wastewater can be generated from a combination of domestic, industrial, commercial or agricultural activities, surface runoff or stormwater, and from sewer inflow or infiltration.
An impervious surface is usually an artificial surface, such as pavements that are covered by impenetrable materials. A pervious surface is a surface in which water can permeate through surface soils. Stormwater is water from rain or snow that does not soak into the ground and collects and transports animal waste, litter, salt, pesticides, fertilizers, oil and grease, soil, and other pollutants. The Project area is a mix of impervious and pervious surfaces ranging from roads and associated hardscape (impervious) to planted/maintained vegetation (landscaped) and the lagoon system.
3.10.1 Hydrology Evaluation
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant impact. The proposed Project would integrate into existing park operations and would be expected to enhance the existing water quality in the parks and lagoon system. Localized ground disturbance would occur during operations that would have some potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, however, this effect is expected to be negligible.
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? No impact. The Project as planned would not draw from the local groundwater sources. No impacts would occur.
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?
No impact. The Project as planned would not alter any existing drainage patterns in the area since all drainage courses and water features will be avoided. No impacts would occur. 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? Less than significant impact. During Project activities, the Project may generate potential increases in the rate of surface runoff due to the amount of vegetation removal. When vegetation is removed, surface runoff rates may increase until vegetation is replaced to slow the rate of runoff. Given all work would occur in existing park areas, no significant effects are expected and this impact would be considered less than significant.
41 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?
No impact. The Project as planned would not 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?
No impact. The Project as planned would not substantially degrade water quality and is expected to increase water quality over the long term.
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. The Project as planned will not involve any housing development. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No impact. The Project as planned will not involve any structure development. 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? No impact. The Project as planned will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. The Project as planned will not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
42 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐
☐ X
3.11.1 Land Use Evaluation
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The proposed Project would potentially enhance the safety and functionality of the parks and recreation facilities for the public and would not have the potential to divide an established community. No impact will 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 Project as planned will not involve any conflicts with current land uses. No impact will occur.
43 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.12 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
3.12.1 Mineral Resources Evaluation
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? 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. The proposed Project would result in no mineral resource extraction and none occurs within the area, which precludes the possibility of related conflicts. No impact 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. The Project area has no active mineral recovery sites located on it. Additionally, the Project as planned would not impact any mineral resources that may be occurring on or around the project site which may have future claims placed on them.
44 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.13 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?
☐ ☐ X ☐
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. 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.
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 to be 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-
45 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.
3.13.1 Noise Evaluation
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. CAGO management activities will create a short-term increase in noise due to the implementation of certain hazing techniques such as noise makers and predator calls. Specially, CAGO management activities would potentially involve dynamic noise making devises/speakers with capability of playing natural predator sounds, CAGO distress calls or other irritating sounds when triggered. These devices may be placed on the front of a boat, on a drone or placed in a fixed position within the parks and operated remotely. These devices have the potential for generation of short-term noise levels in excess of adopted standards at surrounding land uses, however, these devices will be limited to be in the range of ambient noise in urban areas. For this reason, this impact is considered less than significant.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No impact. There will not be a vibration noise increase in noise levels as a result of this Project, no impacts will occur.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
No impact. There will be no permanent noise increase in noise levels as a result of this Project, no impacts will occur.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
No impact. Although there will be temporary noise increase in noise levels as a result of this Project, these levels will not exceed ambient urban levels and no impacts will occur.
46 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?
No impact. There will be no noise increase related to airports as a result of this Project, no impacts will occur.
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 will be no noise increase related to airstrips as a result of this Project, no impacts will occur.
47 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.14 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)?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
3.14.1 Population and Housing Evaluation
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)?
No Impact. The Project will not induce substantial population growth in the Project area.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. This project, as planned, is for the management of CAGO in park areas and will not displace existing housing in the area.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. This project, as planned, is for the management of CAGO in park areas and will not displace substantial numbers of people in the area.
48 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.15 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
3.15.1 Public Services 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?
No Impact. The Project, as planned will not induce a new substantial need for fire protection in the area. No impacts will occur.
b) Police protection?
No Impact. The Project will not induce a new substantial need for police protection in the area. No impacts will occur.
c) Schools?
No Impact. The Project will not induce a new substantial need for schools in the area. d) Parks?
No Impact. The Project will not induce a new substantial need for parks in the area. e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. This project will not induce a new substantial need for public facilities in the area. No impacts will occur.
49 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.16 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
Foster City provides and maintains several developed parks, open space and recreational facilities to serve its residents and tourists. Amenities include play fields and passive recreational opportunities for walking and cycling. The General Plan and local community general plans have policies to support the creation and maintenance of these public spaces.
3.16.1 Recreation 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?
No Impact. The reduction of the Canada geese presence in City parks may increase their use to “pre-goose” levels, but this increase would be spread among several parks and is not anticipated to be so great as to result in a substantial physical deterioration of the facilities.
Therefore, the Project will have no adverse impact on recreation in the City. 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?
No Impact. The project will not adversely impact recreational facilities in or around the City and will likely result in improvements due to control of CAGO in the City. Therefore, the Project will have no adverse impact on recreation in the City.
50 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.17 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
Traffic impacts are evaluated by determining the number of new trips that the project would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on existing or anticipated travel patterns specific to the project, then analyzing the impact the new traffic would be expected to have on critical intersections or roadway segments.
51 3.17.1 Transportation Evaluation
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?
No Impact. The Project, as planned will not induce a new substantial generation of traffic. The day-to-day traffic will only consist of passenger vehicles with trailers for equipment as part of normal park operations. This Project may create short-term increases in traffic on the local road systems, however any increases will be temporary and negligible. No impacts will occur.
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?
No impact. The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP)7 is applicable to development projects anticipated to generate 100 or more average daily trips (ADT). The Project would not generate this level and is therefore not subject to the CMP. There would be no impact.
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. San Carlos Airport, the nearest airport, is located south of the City. The project does not include features that could change air patterns such as tall buildings, smoke emissions, or wildlife attractants. 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)? No impact. The Project will not increase hazards as part of normal park operations. No impact will occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. The Project will not result in any effects to emergency access. No impact will occur.
7 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2023. 2023 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. Available at: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CCAGCMP2023Final-wAppendix.pdf, accessed April 25, 2024.
52 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?
No impact. No policies, plans, or programs for public transit would be affected, there would be no impact.
53 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code §
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is
listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)?
☐ ☐
X ☐
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was enacted on July 1, 2015, and establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as:
“sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and meets either of the following criteria:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or • A 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 PRC Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding tribal cultural resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects.
54 Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list. California Native American tribes must be recognized by the California Native American Heritage Commission as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the lead agency.
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Evaluation
Less than significant impact. The City of Foster City prepared and mailed formal notification letters in accordance with the provisions of AB 52 to the following tribes on:
• Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
• Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
• Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
• Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
• The Ohlone Indian Tribe
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
As of the time of this writing, the City has not received any requests for consultation during the 30-day notification period. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section, the proposed project would not result in major changes to the characteristics of the parks and associated buildings on the project sites and therefore, would result in less than significant impacts. Furthermore, the project is required to implement all SCOAs as noted in this report for accidental discovery of unknown resources.
55 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ X
3.19.1 Utilities Evaluation
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No impact. The effluent generated by the Project would be negligible and self- contained. Therefore, there would be no impact.
56 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?
No impact. The proposed Project would not require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
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?
No impact. The proposed Project would not require construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No impact. The Project would not require potable water service and not be reliant on water supply beyond existing operations, therefore there is no impact. 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? No impact. The proposed Project is self-contained and is not expected to generate effluent. For this reason, there will be no impact.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
No impact. No solid waste will be generated by the Project and no impact will occur. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. No solid waste will be generated by the project and no impact will occur.
57 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.20 Wildfire
Would the project:
a) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐
X
Wildland fire is a constant threat to the State and poses a risk to life and property, both within the wildlands themselves and within the wildland urban interface (WUI).
3.20.1 Wildfire Evaluation
a) 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. Given that the Project is entirely within an urban area, risk associated with wildfire is not expected. This would result in no impact.
58 Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
3.21 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?
☐ X ☐ ☐
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)?
☐ X ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☐ X ☐ ☐
3.21.1 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 with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project may result in impacts associated with biological resources that would be potentially significant if left unmitigated. MM BIO-1 would fully mitigate all potential impacts to levels of less than significant. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts.
59 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 with mitigation incorporated. All cumulative impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. MM AES-1, MM BIO-1, CUL-1, and CUL-2 would fully mitigate all potential impacts to levels of less than significant. Given the size of the project and its impacts and mitigation measures, the incremental effects of this project are not considerable relative to the effects of past, current, and probably future projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on these areas, and 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 with mitigation incorporated. As described throughout the preceding environmental checklist, the project would not result in substantial environmental effects on human beings. All impacts identified in this IS/MND are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that the project would not result in impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
MM AES-1 Use of Mylar Balloons and Mylar Tape. The use of mylar balloons and/or mylar tape at a park shall be limited to two (2) weeks of continuous use followed by a minimum of two (2) weeks on non-use.
MM BIO-1 Migratory Birds and Nesting Raptors
1. If Project work is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for local avian species (typically February 15 through August 31), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds within and in the vicinity of (no less than 250 feet outside the Project boundaries, where possible) the Project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are found, Project activities may proceed.
60 2. If an active nest is located during the pre-activity survey, Project activities shall be restricted to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned, or the biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include the establishment of exclusion zones or alteration of the Project schedule.
MM CUL-1 – Accidental Discovery of Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological: If deposits of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Community Development Director immediately notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the find, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat- affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris- filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal and other refuse.
Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the analysis and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological deposits discovered. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the Foster City Community Development Department and the Northwest Information Center. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains. Adverse effects to such deposits shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible (as determined by the City, in conjunction with the qualified archaeologist), the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, avoidance of project impacts on the deposit shall be the preferred mitigation. If adverse effects on the deposits cannot be avoided, such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; preparation of a brochure for public distribution that discusses the significance of the archaeological deposit; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological material sat a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological
61 materials. The City shall ensure that any mitigation involving excavation of the deposit is implemented prior to the resumption of actions that could adversely affect the deposit.
MM CUL-2 - Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be directed and the County Coroner and the Community Development Director immediately notified. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. The project sponsor shall also be notified. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The project sponsor shall comply with these recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the project sponsor, the Foster City Community Development Department, the MLD, and the Northwest Information Center.