HomeMy WebLinkAboutPS Business Park SCEA Initial Study
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
Initial Study
June 2021
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................ 1
B. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL
STUDY ................................................................................................................. 3
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 3
D. CEQA STREAMLINING ..................................................................................... 17
E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................ 26
F. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................. 27
G. DETERMINATION .............................................................................................. 94
I. AIR QUALITY. ......................................................................................... 95
II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ................................................................ 116
III. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................... 123
IV. ENERGY. ............................................................................................... 127
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. ........................................................................ 132
VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ....................................................... 140
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ....................................... 152
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ................................................ 160
X. NOISE. ................................................................................................... 174
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. .............................................................................. 188
XII. RECREATION. ...................................................................................... 194
XIII. TRANSPORTATION. ............................................................................. 196
XIV. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ...................................................... 210
XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. .................................................. 214
XVI. WILDFIRE. ............................................................................................. 225
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. .................................... 227
H. SOURCES ........................................................................................................ 229
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results
Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Modeling Results
Appendix C: CAP Development Review Checklist
Appendix D: Geotechnical Report
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F: Technical Noise Study
Appendix G: Transportation Study
Appendix H: Transportation Demand Management Program
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 1
June 2021
A. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study (SCEA IS) has been
prepared pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code.
PROJECT TITLE: 124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
(proposed project) would involve demolition of the on-site commercial buildings and
redevelopment of the project site with two seven-story multi-family residential buildings, for a total
of 480 units. The first two levels of each building would be used for parking, and would provide
560 parking spaces in total. The proposed project would also include construction of new
streetscape and landscaping improvements along the Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue and
San Mateo Avenue frontages. In addition, ten percent of the units would be designated as Low-
Income units.
PROJECT LOCATION: The project site consists of an approximately 2.56-acre parcel located
at 124 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-113-180) and an approximately 1.56-acre parcel located at
100 Produce Avenue (APN 015-113-380), both in the City of South San Francisco, California.
NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: City of South San Francisco
CONTACT PERSON/INFORMATION: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner, (650) 877-8535,
tony.rozzi@ssf.net.
NAME OF AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT: City of South San Francisco
REQUIRED FINDINGS: The City of South San Francisco has determined that:
1) the project is consistent with the density, building intensity, and applicable policies
specified for the project area in the Plan Bay Area prepared by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG);
2) the project qualifies as a transit priority project pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21155(b);
3) the project is a residential or mixed-use project as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 21159.28(d);
4) the project as mitigated incorporates all relevant and feasible mitigation measures,
performance standards, or criteria set forth in both the Plan Bay Area Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and the General Plan EIR;
5) all potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified and analyzed
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been identified and
analyzed in an initial study; and
6) the project, as mitigated, either avoids or mitigates to a level of insignificance all
potentially significant or significant effects of the project required to be analyzed
pursuant to CEQA.
Therefore, the City of South San Francisco finds that the proposed project complies with the
requirements of CEQA for using an SCEA as authorized pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21155.2(b).
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 2
June 2021
The attached Environmental Checklist/IS has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco
in support of this SCEA IS. Further information including the project file and supporting reports
and studies may be reviewed at the City’s Planning Department, located at 315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080. However, until further notice, the project file and supporting
documents should be reviewed online, as City offices are currently closed to the public due to
COVID-19 restrictions.
MITIGATION MEASURES: Pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the PRC, this SCEA IS: 1)
incorporates all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set forth in the
prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs), including the Plan Bay Area EIR, and
adopted in findings made pursuant to Section 21081; and 2) contains measures that either avoid
or mitigate to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the project
required to be identified in this IS.
City of South San Francisco
California, a Municipal Corporation
By: ________________________________ Date: ______________________________
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 3
June 2021
B. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Project Title: 124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Lead Agency Contact: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner
(650) 877-8535
tony.rozzi@ssf.net
Project Location: The project site consists of an approximately 2.56-acre parcel
located at 124 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-113-180) and an
approximately 1.56-acre parcel located at 100 Produce Avenue
(APN 015-113-380), both in the City of South San Francisco,
California.
Project Applicant: The Hanover Company
156 Diablo Road, Suite 220
Danville, CA 94526
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the 124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
(proposed project), including the project site’s current location and setting, as well as a discussion
of the project components and necessary discretionary actions.
Project Location and Setting
The project site includes two separate parcels on either side of San Mateo Avenue, south of
Downtown South San Francisco, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
The project site is made up of two component parts. Site 1, located at 124 Airport Boulevard (APN
015-113-180), is approximately 2.56 acres, is currently developed with four commercial buildings,
and is located within the boundary of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). Site 2,
located at 100 Produce Avenue (APN 015-113-380), is approximately 1.56 acres, is developed
with two commercial buildings, and is located adjacent to, but outside of, the boundary for the
DSASP. Both sites are zoned Business Commercial (BC), and the City of South San Francisco
General Plan designates both sites as Business Commercial. Site 1 is also designated Business
Commercial by the DSASP. Site 2 is not in the DSASP.
The overall project site is bound by Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue to the east, Colma Creek
to the south and west, and Caltrain railroad tracks to the north. San Mateo Avenue transects the
site. Highway 101 (US-101) is located approximately 450 feet to the east of the project site.
Surrounding land uses include commercial and industrial businesses, such as Polywell
Computers manufacturing, World Class Charter busses, Lindenville Auto Body Center, and
Marble West floor refinishing service. The South San Francisco Caltrain station is located 0.5
miles north of the project site, and the San Bruno BART station is located approximately one mile
south of the project site. In addition, a City-owned sewer lift station is located outside the northwest
corner of Site 1.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 4
June 2021
Figure 1
Project Site Vicinity
Project Location
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 5
June 2021
Figure 2
Project Site
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 6
June 2021
Project Components
The proposed project would include redevelopment of the project site with two seven-story multi-
family residential buildings, for a total of 480 units. The first two levels of each building would be
used for parking, and would provide 560 parking spaces in total. The proposed project would also
include construction of new streetscape and landscaping improvements along the Airport
Boulevard/Produce Avenue and San Mateo Avenue frontages. In addition, ten percent of the units
would be designated as Low-Income units.
The requested entitlements for the project are discussed in the following sections.
General Plan Amendment
The existing General Plan designation for Sites 1 and 2 is Business Commercial (BC). In order to
accommodate the proposed project, the applicant proposes a text and map amendment to the
General Plan. The proposed text amendment would add new text to the General Plan, allowing
the City to apply the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) land use designation to additional areas it
deems appropriate for transit-oriented development. The proposed text revisions to pg. 2-17 of
the General Plan, where the General Plan Downtown Transit Core land use designation is
defined, are as follows:
This designation applies to the area that lies within a 1/4 mile, or a five-minute
walk, of the reconfigured Caltrain Station and undercrossing. It is bounded by Lux
Avenue on the north, Second Lane on the south, Union Pacific Railroad/Caltrain
tracks on the east, and properties on the west side of Linden Avenue on the west.
In its discretion, the City may also apply this designation to 1) Development sites
within a 1/2-mile radius of the reconfigured South San Francisco Caltrain Station,
San Bruno BART Station, South San Francisco BART Station, or high-quality
transit corridor included in Plan Bay Area One or as otherwise determined by the
City; and 2) Transit Priority Areas evaluated in Plan Bay Area One. Prior to
approving such a discretionary designation, the City shall require site-specific
CEQA review.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment would redesignate the entire project site
from BC to DTC.
Pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element, the Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100
dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 180
dwelling units per acre would be allowed for development meeting specified criteria. The proposed
project is consistent with the allowable DTC density, given that the base project density is 100
dwelling units per acre, for a total of 400 residential units, including 40 low income units. By
providing 10 percent low income units, the project is entitled to a 20 percent density bonus,
equivalent to 80 bonus units. Thus, the proposed project includes a total of 480 units.
The proposed text and map amendments are consistent with the Preferred Land Use Scenario
(PLUS) for the City’s comprehensive General Plan Update. The proposal creates a mechanism
for the proposed project to rely on the DTC designation, while the broader General Plan Update
is pending, such that the project can move forward now, rather than waiting for the adoption of
the General Plan Update. Importantly, if any other future project applies for a DTC land use
designation under the text amendment, it will require its own site-specific environmental review
under CEQA.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 7
June 2021
Specific Plan Amendment
Site 1 is currently within the DSASP. The proposed project includes a request to amend the
DSASP Land Use Plan to remove Site 1 from the Specific Plan.
Rezone
As noted above, Site 1 is located within the boundary of the DSASP, while Site 2 sits just outside
the boundary. Both sites are currently zoned Business Commercial (BC) and require a rezone to
accommodate the proposed residential use. By applying a General Plan designation that allows
high-density residential uses, the proposal would qualify the project for Planned Development
(PD) zoning, consistent with the Municipal Code. Thus, the project includes a request to rezone
Sites 1 and 2 from BC to PD.
The PD zoning will incorporate land uses and development standards from the existing DTC
zoning district, including multi-family residential at a base density of up to 100 units per acre
(subject to increase under any applicable density bonus program), consistent with the proposed
project. The PD zoning will also incorporate land uses allowed on the site by the existing Business
Commercial (BC) zoning district.
Site Plan – Design Review
The first stage of the proposed project would involve demolition of the six existing single-story
commercial buildings on-site. The existing buildings make up a total of approximately 93,775
square feet (sf).
The proposed Building 1, located at 124 Airport Boulevard, would be a 455,865-sf building
consisting of 294 multi-family residential units throughout five levels, above two levels of parking.
The ground floor would include a lobby and leasing office, bike parking, and a fitness room. The
third floor would include resident amenity spaces, including a Club Room, and two courtyards,
the larger of which would feature a pool and lounge spaces for residents. The proposed height of
Building 1 would be 85 feet (see Figure 3).
The proposed Building 2, located at 100 Produce Avenue, would be 287,830 sf, and would consist
of 186 apartments throughout five levels, above two levels of parking. A lobby and leasing office,
bike parking, and bike lounge will be located on the ground floor. The third-floor podium level
would include two courtyards, and the larger of the two courtyards would include a Club Room
and lounge spaces for residents. The proposed building height would be 85 feet (see Figure 4).
Table 1 shows the proposed unit breakdown for both buildings. Figure 5 depicts a computer
rendering of the completed project, including both buildings, when looking north from along
Produce Avenue.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 8
June 2021
Figure 3
Elevation Plan – Building 1
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 9
June 2021
Figure 4
Elevation Plan – Building 2
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 10
June 2021
Figure 5
Completed Project, Looking North
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 11
June 2021
Table 1
Proposed Unit Mix
Unit Type Building 1 Building 2
Studio 61 36
1 Bedroom 139 90
2 Bedroom 89 51
3 Bedroom 5 9
Total Units 294 186
As part of the site plan and design review approval, the project will request a 20 percent density
bonus by providing 10 percent of the units as affordable to Low Income households under the
State Density Bonus Law, California Government Code section 65915.
The base project density is 100 dwelling units per acre, for a total of 400 residential units, including
40 low income units. By providing 10 percent low income units, the project is entitled to a 20
percent density bonus, equivalent to 80 bonus units. Thus, the proposed project includes a total
of 480 units.
Parking
The proposed project would provide parking for motorized vehicles and bicycles. A Parking
Summary is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Parking Summary
Parking Type Building 1 Building 2
Standard 245 128
Compact 57 60
Standard Accessible 6 4
Van Accessible 1 1
Tandem 32 26
Vehicle Total 341 219
Bicycle Parking 147 93
A total of 560 parking spaces would be provided, resulting in a blended ratio of 1.17 spaces per
unit. Due to the availability of transit options and bicycle facilities near the project, as well as the
proportion of studio and one-bedroom units being proposed (68 percent), it is reasonable to
assume that not all residents of the proposed development would own a car and require a parking
space. Thus, the vehicle parking demand will likely be less than the City’s parking requirement.
In addition, the project includes a total of 240 long-term bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds
the City’s Code requirement for the project of 121 spaces.
Landscaping
The proposed project would provide landscaping improvements throughout the project site,
including new trees and shrubs along the perimeter of the site and within the courtyards (see
Figure 6). All landscaping improvements would be subject to the Landscape Design Principles
set forth in Section C of Chapter 20.300.007 of the City’s Municipal Code and would be required
to abide by the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 12
June 2021
The project would include the provision of open space areas for residents to enjoy, such as
landscaped areas, four programmed courtyards, and balconies. Building 1 would provide 30,381
sf of open space, and Building 2 would provide 19,823 sf of open space (see Figure 7).
Utilities and Service Systems
The following section details sewer, stormwater, and water service at the project site.
Sewer
The City of South San Francisco owns and maintains the sanitary sewer system adjacent to the
project site, and an existing sewer main is located within San Mateo Avenue adjacent to both
parcels. The City base maps show the main to be a six-inch pipe, but preliminary survey data
shows the pipe to be eight inches. Additional survey information is needed to confirm the actual
size of the existing pipe.
The project would include installation of an eight-inch sewer lateral for Building 1 at an existing
manhole on the north side of San Mateo Avenue, connecting to the existing sewer line in San
Mateo Avenue. Additionally, the project would include installation of a six-inch sewer lateral for
Building 2 at an existing manhole within the sidewalk on the south side of San Mateo Avenue,
connecting to the existing sewer in San Mateo Avenue.
Stormwater
The City of South San Francisco also owns and maintains the storm drain system adjacent to the
site. Site 1 currently drains to the existing storm drain system in San Mateo Avenue, which flows
to a 24-inch outfall to Colma Creek (Outfall #3). A portion of Site 2 also drains to the 24-inch outfall
(Outfall #3). Other portions of Site 2 drain to three separate 15-inch outfalls to Colma Creek
(Outfalls #1, #2, and #4).
The proposed project would include the relocation of the 24-inch stormwater pipe that runs
through Site 2 and the associated easement dedicated to the City to the western edge of the site,
and connection to the existing 24-inch Outfall #3. Outfall #3 would not need to be modified. Runoff
from Building 2 would drain to an existing privately-owned and maintained 15-inch pipe and then
to the existing 15-inch Outfall #4. Runoff from at-grade areas of Site 2 would drain to the existing
24-inch storm drain and ultimately to Outfall #3. It is noted that in the post-project condition no
flow from the project site would be directed to Outfalls #1 and #2.
The project would include a storm drain connection for Building 1 by way of a new manhole
installed on the existing storm drainpipe in San Mateo Avenue. The proposed project would also
provide a storm drain connection for Building 2 by way of a new manhole on the private storm
drainpipe in Site 2.
Per the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-0074, certain “Special Projects” are
eligible for Low Impact Design (LID) Treatment Reduction Credits. The LID Treatment Reduction
Credit is the maximum percentage of the amount of runoff that may be treated with non-LID
treatment measures, such as tree-box-type high flowrate biofilters or vault-based high flowrate
media filters. The project sites are classified as a Category C Special Project (transit-oriented
development) and qualifies for a 75 percent LID treatment reduction. The proposed project would
treat stormwater from the project site using a combination of a self-retaining areas, bioretention
within the podium level courtyards, and two at-grade media filters.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 13
June 2021
Figure 6
Landscaping Plan
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 14
June 2021
Figure 7
Open Space Areas
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 15
June 2021
Per the Countywide Hydromodification Control Area Map in the San Mateo County C.3
Stormwater Technical Guidance Appendix H, the proposed project would not be subject to
hydromodification requirements.1
Water
The potable water distribution system in the project area is owned and operated by the California
Water Service Company. An eight-inch water line currently exists within San Mateo Avenue
adjacent to the site; a six-inch water line is located in a portion of Airport Boulevard adjacent to
the south end of Site 1; a six-inch water line is located in a portion of Produce Avenue adjacent
to the north end of Site 2; and a 12-inch water line is located in Produce Avenue adjacent to Site
2.
Based on the building size and construction type, three fire hydrants would be required to serve
the proposed buildings. The project would include the installation of six new fire hydrants adjacent
to the project site:
• One hydrant on the east side of Building 1, served from the six-inch water line in Airport
Boulevard
• Two hydrants on the south side of Building 1 and one hydrant on the north side of Building
2, each served from the eight-inch water line in San Mateo Avenue
• Two hydrants on the east side of Building 2, each served from the 12-inch water line in
Produce Avenue
Based on preliminary fire flow information from the California Water Service Company, flow and
pressure in the existing water mains are sufficient to provide acceptable fire flow. For each of the
buildings, the project would include a 5/8-inch irrigation service, a six-inch domestic water service,
and an eight-inch fire service. These service laterals would be connected to the existing eight-
inch water main in San Mateo Avenue.
Site Access
Site 1 would include two vehicular access points in the same approximate locations of the existing
driveways, one of which is located at the site’s southern boundary along San Mateo Avenue, and
the second of which is located at the site’s eastern boundary, along Airport Boulevard. These two
access points would provide direct vehicle access to the Building 1 parking garage. Two
additional smaller driveways would be included for service vehicle use only (e.g.,
transformer/electrical maintenance). The project would also include construction of a new
sidewalk along the Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue frontages, with pedestrian
connection points providing access to the building.
Site 2 would also include two vehicular access points in the same approximate locations as the
existing driveways, one of which is located at the site’s northern boundary along San Mateo
Avenue, and the second of which is located at the site’s eastern boundary, along Produce
Avenue. These two access points would provide direct vehicle access to the Building 2 parking
garage. One additional driveway would be included for service vehicle use only. The project
would also include construction of a new sidewalk along the Produce Avenue and San Mateo
Avenue frontages, pedestrian connection points providing access to the building.
1 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2
[Page H-3]. January 4, 2013.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 16
June 2021
New left-turn lanes on westbound and eastbound San Mateo Avenue would be installed, as well
as medians, to ensure safe turning movements can be made into the project driveways.
Off-Site Improvements
Pursuant to the recommendations of the project-specific transportation study, the proposed
project includes the removal of the northwestern and southwestern slip lanes at the intersection
of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue. In addition to removing the slip lanes,
the project would add directional curb ramps, stripe high-visibility continental crosswalks, and
stripe southbound and eastbound bicycle lane approaches at the intersection. Removing slip
lanes would result in a tighter turn radius, which would help slow right-turning vehicles, providing
a safer experience for bicycles and pedestrians. Enhanced crosswalks would also provide shorter
crossing distances for pedestrians, reducing pedestrian exposure to vehicle traffic.
Construction
Construction is anticipated to begin in April of 2022 and continue over the course of three years.
Demolition would occur over the first 30 days of construction, and would require the removal of
93,775-sf of building material. During site preparation, approximately 100 cubic yards (CY) of
material would be exported, and during grading, approximately 16,517 CY would be imported and
26,172 CY would be exported.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
The project would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan intended to help
alleviate congestion on local roadways. A TDM has been prepared for the project by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants (see Appendix H). The TDM measures for the project were developed
consistent with the City of South San Francisco – DSASP goals to “provide for a balanced mix of
travel modes – including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and automobiles.” TDM measures could
include but are not limited to, providing a designated transportation coordinator, provision of
secure long-term bicycle parking, bike repair standards/kiosks, carpool/vanpool incentives,
subsidized transit passes, car share programs, etc. The TDM is subject to review and approval
by the City.
Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the proposed project would require City approval of the following entitlements:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA);
• Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment;
• Rezone;
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program: The project would include a
TDM Program intended to help alleviate congestion on local roadways. Common TDM
measures could include: preferential parking for electric vehicles, on-site EV changing
stations, unbundled residential parking, vanpool or carpool services, and public transit
information kiosks in building lobbies. The TDM would require City approval;
• Site Plan – Design Review: Per Section 20.480.002 of the City’s Municipal Code, the
proposed project would be subject to Design Review by the City. Specifically, the site plan
would be analyzed based on the physical features of the proposed project, including, but
not limited to, the following elements: building proportions and architectural details; site
design, orientation location; size, location, and arrangement of on-site parking; exterior
colors and materials; and location and type of landscaping. The purpose of the regulations
is to ensure that development throughout the City is designed to support General Plan
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 17
June 2021
policies and to promote high-quality design, well-crafted and maintained buildings and
landscaping, the use of high-quality building materials, and attention to the design and
execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects;
• Density Bonus: The project will include a 20 percent density bonus as allowed by the
State Density Bonus Law; and
• Tree Removal Permit.
D. CEQA STREAMLINING
The California State Legislature has adopted statutory provisions to enable streamlined
environmental review for “transit priority projects” that are consistent with the general use
designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in
either a “sustainable communities strategy” or an “alternative planning strategy”. (Public
Resources Code sections 21155 et seq.). For the project region, the applicable regional
transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy is Plan Bay Area One, adopted by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on July 26, 2017.2
Under section 21155(a), to receive streamlining benefits, a transit priority project must also be
consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies
specified in a sustainable communities strategy. The project would qualify for streamlining if it is
consistent with such land use designation, requirements and policies under Plan Bay Area One.
Here, Plan Bay Area One does not identify individual land use designations, nor does it impose
specific density or building intensity standards. Instead, the Plan divides the Plan area among
Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), and Transit Priority
Areas (TPAs). PDAs and TPAs are areas designated for future growth and development.3 PDAs
and TPAs are similar in that both focus on access to transit service and are appropriately planned
for growth. The major difference is how they are designated: A PDA is identified by a local agency
for adoption by ABAG; a TPA is defined based on criteria in state law. PCAs are open spaces
that provide agricultural, natural resource, scenic, recreational, and/or ecological values and
ecosystem functions.
As shown in Table 1.2-8 of the Plan Bay Area EIR, the land use growth footprint covers 18,700
acres of land in the Bay Area. Within that area 7,400 acres, or approximately 40 percent of the
land use growth footprint, would be located in TPAs. Approximately half of the land use growth
footprint would be located within PDAs. As further indicated in Table 1.2-8, the land use growth
footprint of San Mateo County contains 170 acres of land designated TPA, including the project
site; therefore, the project is consistent with the growth projections and development policies in
the Plan Bay Area One.
Because the project site is located within a TPA that is part of the land use growth footprint for
Plan Bay Area One (refer to Figure 8), the project is consistent with the land use and development
assumptions within the Plan. The project is also consistent with the other applicable policies in
2 As required by Senate Bill 375, all metropolitan regions in California must complete a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) as part of a Regional Transportation Plan. In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are jointly responsible for developing
and adopting a SCS that integrates transportation, land use and housing to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets
set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
3 PDAs are specific geographic areas that meet the following criteria: 1) within an existing community; 2) within
walking distance of frequent transit service; 3) designated for more housing in a locally adopted plan or identified
by a local government for future planning and potential growth; and 4) nominated through a resolution adopted by
a City Council or County Board of Supervisors. Staff recommendations are presented to ABAG’s Regional Planning
Committee for approval and then to ABAG’s Executive Board for regional adoption.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 18
June 2021
Plan Bay Area One, as demonstrated below in Table 3. It should be noted that the Plan Bay Area
One does not explicitly include policies, but rather action items. In the absence of specific policies,
this document will address project consistency with the action items included in Plan Bay Area
One.
Under section 21155(b), a project must meet the following criteria to qualify as a transit priority
project:
(1) contain at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage and, if
the project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area
ratio of not less than 0.75;
(2) provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; and
(3) be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a
regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except
that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in
the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of section 21155, a high-quality
transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no
longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be
within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within
the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the
stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units,
whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.
With respect to criterion 1, the project contains 100 percent residential uses, with a total of 480
multi-family units. Total residential building square footage is 406,889 sf, with an additional
109,237 sf for amenity, circulation, and services, and 227,569 sf of podium parking. The floor area
ratio (FAR) for Building 1 is 2.81 and the FAR for Building 2 is 2.92. Therefore, the project meets
criterion 1.
With respect to criterion 2, the project provides a net density of 116.5 dwelling units per acre (480
total units / 4.12 total acres). This includes a net density of 114.8 dwelling units per acre for Site
1 (294 units/2.56 acres) and 119.2 dwelling units per acre for Site 2 (186 units/1.56 acres).
Therefore, the project meets criterion 2.
With respect to criterion 3, the project site is located within one-half (0.5) mile of both the existing
and the proposed new South San Francisco Caltrain Station (See Figure 9). Both Caltrain stations
are considered to be major transit stops by the MTC/ABAG.4 The existing and proposed relocated
Caltrain Station meet the major transit stop criteria of PRC 21064.3 because the stops are
considered rail transit stations.5
4 See http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/major-transit-stops-2017?geometry=-122.430%2C37.648%2C-
122.372%2C37.660; Accessed April 5, 2020.
5 According to PRC 21064.3, “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry
terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a
frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 19
June 2021
Figure 8
Transit Priority Areas as Identified by the MTC
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission GIS. Transit Priority Areas (2017) Available at:
http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/d97b4f72543a40b2b85d59ac085e01a0_0?geometry=-122.461%2C37.641%2C-122.346%2.
Project Site
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 20
June 2021
Figure 9
Major Transit Stops
Source: Fehr and Peers. 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 21
June 2021
The proposed new Caltrain station, known as the South San Francisco Caltrain Improvement
Project, is currently under construction and anticipated for completion in Summer 2021. The
Caltrain project involves replacing the existing South San Francisco Station towards the south,
on the other side of Grand Avenue, with a new center-boarding platform connecting to a
pedestrian underpass. The project consists of track work, signal work, a new 700-foot center
board platform with amenities and connectivity to a new pedestrian underpass from the platform
to Grand Avenue and Industrial Way. While the new station platform will only be moved
approximately 600 feet (0.1 miles) to the south of the existing platform, the new station access
portal at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue will be approximately 1,100 feet
(0.2 miles) closer to the project site than the existing station access point, and continuous
sidewalks will exist between the new station and the project site.
Because the project meets all three criteria of section 21155(b), it qualifies as a transit priority
project.
Moreover, because the project is a transit priority project and is consistent with Plan Bay Area
One, it qualifies for CEQA streamlining under PRC Sections 21155 (a) and (b). The available
streamlining benefits include, but are not limited to:
1. Review through a sustainable communities environmental assessment (SCEA). (PRC, §
21155.2)
2. The SCEA is not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts,
or (2) any project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips
generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network. (PRC,
§ 21159.28, subd. (a).) In addition, where the leady agency determines that a cumulative
impact has been adequately addressed and mitigated in a prior certified EIR, that
cumulative impact shall not be treated as cumulatively considerable. (PRC, § 21155.2
subd. (b)(1).)
3. Alternative locations, densities, and building intensities to the proposed project need not
be considered. (PRC, § 21159.28, subd. (b).)
4. Aesthetic and parking impacts should not be considered significant impacts on the
environment. (PRC, § 21099, subd. (d)(1).)
Projects within a TPA are identified by the MTC/ABAG and SB 375 as being Transit Priority Projects.
Per PRC § 21099, subd. (d)(1) and PRC § 21159.28, subd. (a), Transit Priority Projects are not
required to discuss the following environmental impact areas:
1. Aesthetics and parking;
2. Growth-inducing impacts; and
3. Project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light trucks generated by the project
on GHG emissions or the regional roadway network.
In addition, the below list of environmental impact areas represents those that can be dismissed
based on the project’s urban infill location (e.g., Agricultural and Forestry Resources and Mineral
Resources), or other relevant factors (see the following discussion regarding Population and
Housing).
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 22
June 2021
4. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
There are no agricultural or forestry resources on the project site or in the surrounding
area, which is fully urbanized. Thus, the project has no potential for impacts to agricultural
or forestry resources.
5. Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources on the project site. The site is not designated for
mineral resource recovery on any land use plan, and the proposed development would
not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resources. Thus, the project has no
potential for impacts to mineral resources.
6. Population and Housing
The CEQA checklist questions under Population and Housing are listed below:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Item ‘a’ focuses on growth-inducing impacts, which, pursuant to PRC, § 21159.28, subd.
(a), is not a required topic for projects that qualify for CEQA Streamlining. Because the
proposed project qualifies for CEQA Streamlining, this SCEA is not required to analyze
growth-inducing impacts such as direct or indirect unplanned population growth in an area.
Additionally, the project is consistent with and implements planned growth for the area, as
documented in Plan Bay Area and the City’s land use plans.
Item ‘b’ is related to the displacement of people or housing. The project site is currently
developed with six single-story commercial buildings. Implementation of the project would
involve the demolition of the on-site commercial buildings. However, considering the on-
site buildings are not used as residences, demolition of the buildings would not displace
existing people or housing. As such, implementation of the project would result in no
impact related to Item ‘b’, and the item is hereby dismissed from further analysis within the
SCEA.
Plan Bay Area Consistency Discussion
As discussed in further detail in Section D, CEQA Streamlining, the proposed project is consistent
with the general land use and development assumptions within the Plan Bay Area One (hereafter
referred to as “Plan Bay Area"). Table 3 includes a comparison of how the proposed project
complies with applicable action items in the Plan Bay Area. The following action items apply to
local jurisdictions.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 23
June 2021
Table 3
Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Housing Actions
Advance regional “self-help” funding and financing
solutions for housing: Develop a plan for
generating regional revenues for the production
and preservation of housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income households (could include
measures such as a parcel tax, commercial linkage
fee or other dedicated funding). Evaluate the
creation of innovative financing tools, such as a
regional infill Infrastructure Bank, a land bank or a
Regional Housing Trust Fund, to support new
housing or infrastructure improvements.
This action focuses on developing regional
affordable housing strategies, which is beyond the
scope of this project. The project will designate 10
percent as affordable/low-income. Therefore, the
project would generally comply with the intent of
this action item.
Advance state legislative and funding solutions:
Support state legislative or funding opportunities
that advance the objectives of this Action Plan,
including securing a permanent source of
affordable housing funding, increasing community
stabilization and lessening displacement risk,
reducing costs and barriers to housing
development, incentivizing developers to create
workforce and low-income housing, incentivizing
the creation of accessory dwelling units, as well as
other measures that will contribute to increased
supply of both market-rate and affordable housing.
The proposed project would result in the production
of 480 units of new housing. The project applicant
is taking advantage of a density bonus by providing
10 percent of the units as affordable to Low Income
households under the State Density Bonus Law,
California Government Code section 65915.
Therefore, the project would generally comply with
the intent of this action item.
Evaluate expanded policies connecting
transportation funding to housing production and
performance: Analyze the feasibility of incentivizing
housing production with pertinent existing and new
transportation funding sources, with particular
emphasis on housing affordable to very low-, low-
and moderate-income households as well as anti-
displacement and community stabilization.
Develop a strategy for the use of public land
proximate to major transit assets to facilitate the
development of housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income households through conditions
and provisions on funding sources. Report to the
Commission on all discretionary funding sources
where such housing provisions and conditions may
be added.
The proposed project would include the
development of new housing, with 10 percent of the
units designated as affordable, within close
proximity to major transit assets (i.e., the
Downtown Caltrain station). While the project
would not analyze incentives or develop a strategy,
as such action items act on the regional scale and
are beyond the scope of this project, the project
would generally comply with the intent of this action
item.
Provide technical assistance and best practices to
local jurisdictions related to the transformation of
“opportunity areas”: Assist local agencies as they
envision upgrades to low-intensity office parks and
retail centers to create mixed-use, mixed income
neighborhoods with significant housing.
As a TPA, the project site is located within an
opportunity area for development. The
redevelopment of the project site from low-intensity
office to high-density residential with significant
housing would directly comply with this suggested
action item.
Strengthen technical assistance and policy
leadership for housing and community
stabilization: Expand and transform regional
agency technical assistance for local jurisdictions
that is tailored to both Bay Area-wide challenges
and challenges unique to specific parts of the
The proposed project is considered a transit-
oriented development, would include production of
affordable housing, and is an infill redevelopment.
As such, the project would generally comply with
the intent of this action item.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 24
June 2021
Table 3
Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
region, including best practices to support new
housing (e.g., heights that support more units and
allow projects to “pencil out” without compromising
neighborhood character). Focus areas for technical
assistance could include guidance on
implementing state legislation for transit-oriented
development and the production of housing
affordable to low- and moderate-income
households, guidance on housing preservation and
locally appropriate community stabilization and
anti-displacement policies, supporting healthy infill
development, and coordination of neighboring
jurisdictions along transit corridors and in
subregions to identify shared solutions to housing
challenges. Explore new and expanded community
stabilization and anti-displacement policies to
support low-income renters, including incentives
for landlords to keep existing rents affordable.
Economic Development Actions
Coordinate regional economic solutions for
growing and retaining businesses, particularly for
middle-wage sectors: Identify areas of economic
development that could benefit from a regional
approach including connecting businesses with
growth opportunities within the Bay Area;
prioritizing transportation investments that directly
grow local businesses; identifying solutions for
workforce housing needs; and creating a forum for
discussing skill gaps between existing community
college programs and the needs of trade sectors.
Because the proposed project would involve the
demolition of the existing on-site commercial
buildings, the project may result in a short-term
adverse effect related to economic development.
However, by developing housing in a TPA that
includes studios and one- and two-bedroom units,
the project would create workforce housing and
support local businesses while reducing commute-
associated VMT. Therefore, the project would
generally comply with this action item.
Increase transportation access to growing and
potential job centers: Broaden core capacity transit
study partnership to cover a larger geography to
plan for major transportation capital investments;
move forward on planning efforts for a second
Transbay Tube and on construction efforts for the
California High Speed Rail system; continue to
evaluate a means-based fare or other methods for
reducing or eliminating transportation costs for
lower-wage workers and students; evaluate
expanded support for local transit systems that
address first-mile, last-mile problems; and evaluate
transportation improvements that could facilitate
downtown revitalization in areas needing economic
development.
This action item is focused on regional
cooperation regarding future transportation capital
investments and improvements, which is beyond
the scope of this project. It is noted that the project,
by introducing additional residents near the South
San Francisco Caltrain station, provides expanded
support for the station.
Support regional growth by balancing housing,
transit-oriented jobs, and industrial uses: Establish
criteria for Priority Production Areas to encourage
local jurisdictions to plan for space needed for
manufacturing, distribution and repair and assess
areas that could be converted to housing or mixed-
use development; evaluate potential incentives
The proposed project involves production of a
transit-oriented residential development within a
TPA, and would include the conversion of an area
from commercial to housing. As such, the project
would generally comply with the intent of this action
item.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 25
June 2021
Table 3
Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
that could be used to support companies that
locate offices in transit-rich as opposed to auto-
centric areas; and evaluate the use of last-mile
transportation solutions to connect communities
with warehouses and industrial jobs that cannot be
located in downtowns due to land requirements.
Resilience Actions
Develop a regional governance strategy for climate
adaptation projects: Develop an institutional
strategy for managing, coordinating, and
implementing regional and local projects related to
climate change adaptation.
This action item is focused on regional levels and,
therefore, does not apply to the proposed project.
Provide stronger policy leadership on resilient
housing and infrastructure: Expand guidance on
resilient housing policies for earthquake, flooding
and fire, working in coordination with state and
federal agencies and focusing on communities with
high social vulnerability and exposure to natural
hazards. Strengthen infrastructure lifelines to
ensure that utilities can provide services under a
variety of conditions and future scenarios.
This action item is regional focused and, therefore,
beyond the scope of this project. Nonetheless, the
proposed project would comply with all relevant
regulations related to earthquake, flood, and fire
resilience. As such, the proposed project would
generally comply with the intent of this action item.
Expand the region’s network of natural
infrastructure: Coordinate regional programs to
preserve and expand natural features that reduce
flood risk, strengthen biodiversity, enhance air
quality, improve access to urban and rural public
space, mitigate urban heat island effects, and
enhance health. Leverage existing initiatives —
including Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), the
Resilient by Design Challenge, the Bay Trail and
other regional trails, San Francisco Estuary
Partnership, and Bay Restoration Authority — and
partner with special districts and cities.
This action item is regional focused and, therefore,
beyond the scope of this project. Because the
proposed project would involve infill redevelopment
within a TPA, the project would not conflict with this
measure. Therefore, the project would generally
comply with this action item.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. Plan Bay Area
2040 EIR.
Previous Relevant Environmental Analysis: Development within the project site and
immediate area was assumed as part of the MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area and analyzed as part
of the cumulative conditions assumed in the Plan Bay Area EIR (SCH # 2016052041), certified
July 26, 2017, and in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR (SCH # 97122030) adopted in
1999. Due to the age of the General Plan EIR, only those portions of the EIR that remain
applicable, considering changes in the regulatory environment over the past 20 years, will be
included in this SCEA. In addition, this analysis considers any revisions to the Plan Bay Area EIR
as included in the Plan Bay Area Addendum to the Final EIR, adopted in May 2020.
As noted in Section 2.0.4, Mitigation, of the Plan Bay Area EIR, mitigation is proposed throughout
the Plan Bay Area EIR, where feasible, to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts.
However, for some impacts, MTC/ABAG do not have regulatory or approval authority over the
project and, therefore, cannot ensure implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 26
June 2021
In such cases, the Plan Bay Area EIR concludes that the impact would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact.
In order to rely on the Plan Bay Area EIR to streamline environmental review for an individual
project, the lead agency must require the applicable mitigation measures as a part of the project-
level environmental review. These commitments would obligate project sponsors to implement
measures that would minimize or eliminate significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The project
sponsor or lead agency would be responsible for ensuring adherence to the mitigation measures
during construction and operation of the project. Consequently, the Plan Bay Area EIR makes a
distinction in characterizing impact significance after mitigation to reflect whether MTC is able to
assume implementation of identified mitigation measures because it has the authority to impose
the measures.
Overall, the Plan Bay Area EIR may conclude that certain impacts would be significant and
unavoidable due to the MTC/ABAG’s lack of authority to impose feasible mitigation, when, in fact,
implementation of the suggested mitigation measure(s) would reduce such impacts to a less-than-
significant level. As a result, some impacts which are deemed significant and unavoidable impacts
under Plan Bay Area EIR will not be deemed as significant and unavoidable in this SCEA because
the City will implement the mitigation measures, thereby rendering the impacts less than
significant.
E. 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.
Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources
Energy Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Public Services
Recreation Noise Utilities and Service
Systems
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Tribal Cultural
Resources
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 27
June 2021
F. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Following is the environmental checklist form (also known as an “Initial Study”) presented in
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of
the project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist, with the
exception of those issue areas that are exempt from analysis for Transit Priority Projects (i.e.,
aesthetics; agricultural and forestry resources; mineral resources; population and housing;
growth-inducing impacts; and project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light trucks
generated by the project on GHG emissions or the regional roadway network). Included in each
discussion are project-specific mitigation measures recommended as part of the project, if
necessary, to reduce an identified impact.
For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant: An impact that could be significant, and for which mitigation has not been
identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared. An SCEA
cannot be used in the case of a project for which this conclusion is reached in any impact category.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This designation applies where
applicable and feasible mitigation measures previously identified in prior applicable EIRs have
reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”, and
pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the PRC, those measures are incorporated into the SCEA IS.
In each impact section of the SCEA IS checklist below, applicable mitigation measures from the
City of South San Francisco General Plan EIR and Plan Bay Area EIR are identified, and where
feasible, identified for incorporation into the project. It is noteworthy that the General Plan EIR
incorporates General Plan policies in the form of mitigation measures. In this way, the General
Plan is a “self-mitigating” document. Other than General Plan policies, there are no additional
mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR.
This designation also applies where the incorporation of new project-specific mitigation measures
not previously identified in prior applicable EIRs has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
Less Than Significant: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA, relative
to existing standards specific to each environmental issue.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
The below summary table presents mitigation measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR. Due to the
programmatic nature of the Plan Bay Area EIR, many of the mitigation measures are broad in
scope and their applicability needs to be determined through project-specific environmental
review. This SCEA determines the applicability of Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation measures to the
proposed project. Such applicability is noted in the below table.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 28
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
I. AIR QUALITY
a. Would the
project conflict
with or obstruct
implementation
of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. Would the
project 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?
LTS None 2.2-2. When screening levels are
exceeded (see Table 2.2-8 [of the
Plan Bay Area EIR] or those most
currently updated by BAAQMD),
implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where applicable,
feasible, and necessary based on
project- and site-specific
considerations, that include, but are
not limited to the following:
Construction Best Practices for
Exhaust:
• The applicant/general
contractor for the project shall
submit a list of all off-road
equipment greater than 25
horsepower (hp) that would
be operated for more than 20
hours over the entire duration
of project construction,
including equipment from
subcontractors, to BAAQMD
for review and certification.
The list shall include all
information necessary to
ensure the equipment meets
the following requirement:
o 1) Be zero emissions
OR 2) have engines
that meet or exceed
The proposed project would exceed the
operational criteria pollutant screening size,
as presented in Table 2.2-8 of the Plan Bay
Area EIR. However, it is noted that the
project’s modeled emissions would be
below the BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance for construction, as
demonstrated in Table 5 of this SCEA IS.
Nevertheless, given the project’s reliance on
the Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA
streamlining purposes, Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.2-2 is applicable to the
proposed project.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 29
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
either EPA or ARB Tier
2 off-road emission
standards; and 3) have
engines that are
retrofitted with an ARB
Level 3 Verified Diesel
Emissions Control
Strategy (VDECS), if
one is available for the
equipment being used.
Equipment with
engines that meet Tier
4 Interim or Tier 4 Final
emission standards
automatically meet this
requirement; therefore,
a VDECS would not be
required.
o Idling time of diesel-
powered construction
equipment and trucks
shall be limited to no
more than two minutes.
Clear signage of this
idling restriction shall
be provided for
construction workers at
all access points.
o All construction
equipment shall be
maintained and
properly tuned in
accordance with the
manufacturers’
specifications.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 30
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
o Portable diesel
generators shall be
prohibited. Grid power
electricity should be
used to provide power
at construction sites; or
propane and natural
gas generators may be
used when grid power
electricity is not
feasible.
Construction Best Practices for
Dust:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g.,
parking areas, staging areas,
soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall
be watered two times per day.
For projects over five acres in
size, soil moisture should be
maintained at a minimum of
12 percent. Moisture content
can be verified by lab samples
or a moisture probe.
• All haul trucks transporting
soil, sand, or other loose
material off-site shall be
covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out
onto adjacent public roads
shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 31
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
day. Dry power sweeping
should only be performed in
conjunction with thorough
watering of the subject roads.
• All vehicle speeds on
unpaved roads and surfaces
shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadway, driveway, and
sidewalk paving shall be
completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall
be paved as soon as possible
after grading.
• All construction sites shall
provide a posted sign visible
to the public with the
telephone number and person
to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints.
The recommended response
time for corrective action shall
be within 48 hours.
BAAQMD’s Complaint Line
(1-800-334-6367) shall also
be included on posted signs to
ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
• All excavation, grading,
and/or demolition activities
shall be suspended when
average wind speeds exceed
20 mph.
• Wind breaks (e.g., trees,
fences) shall be installed on
the windward side(s) of
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 32
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
actively disturbed areas of
construction. Wind breaks
should have at maximum 50
percent air porosity.
• Vegetative ground cover
(e.g., fast-germinating native
grass seed) shall be planted
in disturbed areas as soon as
possible and watered
appropriately until vegetation
is established.
• The simultaneous occurrence
of excavation, grading, and
ground-disturbing
construction activities on the
same area at any one time
shall be limited. Activities shall
be phased to reduce the
amount of disturbed surfaces
at any one time.
• All trucks and equipment,
including their tires, shall be
washed off before leaving the
site.
• Site accesses to a distance of
100 feet from the paved road
shall be treated with a 6- to
12-inch compacted layer of
wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
• Sandbags or other erosion
control measures shall be
installed to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways from sites
with a slope greater than one
percent.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 33
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
These BMPs are consistent with
recommendations in BAAQMD’s
CEQA Guidelines and Planning
Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2010b,
BAAQMD 2016). Applicable
mitigation measures shall be
required at the time grading permits
are issued.
c. Would the
project expose
sensitive
receptors to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
S None 2.2-5(a). When locating sensitive receptors in
TAC risk areas, implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors
shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on
project- and site-specific
considerations that include, but are
not limited to the following:
• Install, operate and maintain
in good working order a
central heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC)
system or other air intake
system in the building, or in
each individual unit, that
meets or exceeds a minimum
efficiency reporting value
(MERV) of 13 (MERV-16 for
projects located in the West
Oakland Specific Plan area)6
or higher. The HVAC system
shall include the following
features: Installation of a high
While the effects of TACs on future
residents is beyond the scope of CEQA,
insofar as it pertains to the environment’s
effect on the project, this issue has been
addressed given the SCEA’s reliance on the
Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA streamlining
purposes.
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-
5(a) is programmatic in nature, providing a
menu of options that may be considered on
a project-specific basis to reduce TAC risks.
Based upon the findings of the project-
specific Health Risk Assessment (see
Section I(c), Air Quality), certain
refinements to Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measure 2.2-5(a) were determined
appropriate, with the same net effect of
reducing the impact to a less-than-
significant level. Project-specific Mitigation
Measure I-1 below represents the modified
mitigation measure.
LTS
6 Note: Reference to “West Oakland Specific Plan” is from the adopted Mitigation Measure language.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 34
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
efficiency filter and/or carbon
filter to filter particulates and
other chemical matter from
entering the building. Either
high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters or American
Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) certified 85%
supply filters shall be used.
• Maintain, repair and/or
replace HVAC system on an
ongoing and as needed basis
or shall prepare an operation
and maintenance manual for
the HVAC system and the
filter. The manual shall
include the operating
instructions and the
maintenance and
replacement schedule. This
manual shall be included in
the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for
residential projects and/or
distributed to the building
maintenance staff. In addition,
the applicant shall prepare a
separate homeowners
manual. The manual shall
contain the operating
instructions and the
maintenance and
I-1 Prior to approval of project
improvement plans, the project
applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with the following design
features to the satisfaction of the
City:
• Install, operate and maintain
in good working order a
central heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC)
system or other air intake
system in the building, or in
each individual unit, that
meets or exceeds a
minimum efficiency reporting
value (MERV) of 13 or
higher. The HVAC system
shall include the following
features: Installation of a
high efficiency filter and/or
carbon filter to filter
particulates and other
chemical matter from
entering the building. Either
high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters or American
Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) certified 85
percent supply filters shall be
used.
• Maintain, repair and/or
replace HVAC system on an
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 35
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
replacement schedule for the
HVAC system and the filters.
• Install passive electrostatic
filtering systems with low air
velocities (i.e., less than 1
mph).
• Individual and common
exterior open space and
outdoor activity areas
proposed as part of individual
projects shall be located as far
away as possible within the
project site boundary, face
away major freeways, and
shall be shielded from the
source (i.e., the roadway) of
air pollution by buildings or
otherwise buffered to further
reduce air pollution for project
occupants.
• Locate air intakes and design
windows to reduce PM
exposure (e.g., windows
nearest to the roadway do not
open).
• If sensitive receptors are
located near a distribution
center, residents shall not be
located immediately adjacent
to a loading dock or where
trucks concentrate to deliver
goods.
• Sensitive receptors within
buildings shall be located in
areas upwind of major
ongoing and as needed
basis, and prepare an
operation and maintenance
manual for the HVAC system
and the filter. The manual
shall include the operating
instructions and the
maintenance and
replacement schedule. This
manual shall be included in
the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
for residential projects
and/or distributed to the
building maintenance staff.
In addition, the applicant
shall prepare a separate
homeowners manual. The
manual shall contain the
operating instructions and
the maintenance and
replacement schedule for
the HVAC system and the
filters.
• Individual and common
exterior open space and
outdoor activity areas
proposed as part of
individual projects shall be
located as far away as
possible within the project
site boundary, face away
major freeways, and shall be
shielded from the source
(i.e., the roadway) of air
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 36
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
roadway traffic to reduce
exposure to reduce cancer
risk levels and exposure to
PM2.5.
• Planting trees and/or
vegetation between sensitive
receptors and pollution
source. Trees that are best
suited to trapping PM shall be
planted, including one or more
of the following species: Pine
(Pinus nigra var. maritima),
Cypress (X Cupressocyparis
leylandii), Hybrid popular
(Populus deltoids X
trichocarpa), California
pepper tree (Schinus molle)
and Redwoods (Sequoia
sempervirens).
• Loading docks shall be
required to include electric
hookups for visiting trucks.
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel
trucks at these locations shall
be prohibited or limited to no
more than 2 minutes.
• If within the project site,
existing and new diesel
generators shall meet ARB’s
Tier 4 emission standards.
• Emissions from diesel trucks
shall be reduced through
establishing truck routes to
avoid residential
neighborhoods or other land
pollution by buildings or
otherwise buffered to further
reduce air pollution for
project occupants.
• Planting trees and/or
vegetation between
sensitive receptors and
pollution source. Trees that
are best suited to trapping
PM shall be planted,
including one or more of the
following species: Pine
(Pinus nigra var. maritima),
Cypress (X Cupressocyparis
leylandii), Hybrid popular
(Populus deltoids X
trichocarpa), California
pepper tree (Schinus molle)
and Redwoods (Sequoia
sempervirens).
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel
trucks at these locations
shall be prohibited or limited
to no more than 2 minutes.
• If within the project site,
existing and new diesel
generators shall meet
CARB’s Tier 4 emission
standards.
Based on the project-specific analysis in this
SCEA, the following additional measure is
required:
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 37
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
uses serving sensitive
populations, such as
hospitals, schools, and child
care centers. A truck route
program, along with truck
calming, parking and delivery
restrictions, shall be
implemented to direct traffic
activity at non-permitted
sources and large
construction projects.
These BMPs are consistent with
recommendations in BAAQMD’s
CEQA Guidelines and Planning
Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2011,
BAAQMD 2016).
I-2. Prior to the issuance of any
construction permits, the project
applicant shall contract with a
qualified geologist to prepare an
evaluation for the potential presence
of Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
(NOA). If NOA is not discovered
during the survey, further mitigation
related to NOA is not required. If
NOA is discovered during the
survey, the project applicant shall
prepare an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan, pursuant to § 93105, Title 17,
California Code of Regulations, and
subject to approval by BAAQMD.
The applicant shall submit the
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan to the
City’s Planning Division for review
and approval.
d. Would the
project result in
other emissions
(such as those
leading to odors)
adversely
affecting a
substantial
number of
people?
LTS None None None N/A
II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Would the
project have a
substantial
adverse effect,
either directly or
S None None applicable based on the project-
specific analysis conducted in this SCEA.
II-1. The project applicant shall ensure
that a qualified biologist conduct a
pre-construction survey for nesting
birds within a 250-foot buffer around
the project site boundaries, if
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 38
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
through habitat
modifications, on
any species
identified as a
candidate,
sensitive, or
special status
species in local
or regional
plans, policies,
or regulations, or
by the California
Department of
Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
feasible, not more than 14 days prior
to site disturbance during the
breeding season (February 1st to
August 31st). If site disturbance
commences outside the breeding
season, a pre-construction survey
for nesting birds is not required. The
project applicant shall submit survey
results to the City’s Planning
Division prior to initiation of any
ground disturbance. If active nests
of migratory birds are not detected
within approximately 250 feet of the
project site, further mitigation is not
required.
II-2. If nesting raptors or other migratory
birds are detected on or adjacent to
the site during the survey, the project
applicant shall be responsible for
establishing an appropriate
construction-free buffer around all
active nests. Actual size of buffer
would be determined by the project
biologist, and would depend on
species, topography, and type of
activity that would occur in the
vicinity of the nest. Typical buffers
are 25 feet for non-raptors and up to
250 feet for raptors. The project
buffer would be monitored
periodically by the project biologist
to ensure compliance. The project
applicant shall ensure that these
buffer distances and monitoring
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 39
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
requirements are met. After the
nesting is completed, as determined
by the biologist, the buffer would no
longer be required. The project
applicant shall also ensure that
these buffers remain in place for the
duration of the breeding season or
until a qualified biologist has
confirmed that all chicks have
fledged and are independent of their
parents.
b. Would the
project 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 Wildlife
or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c. Would the
project have a
substantial
adverse effect
on state or
NI None None applicable based on the project-
specific analysis conducted in this SCEA.
None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 40
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
federally
protected
wetlands
(including, but
not limited to,
marsh, vernal
pool, coastal,
etc.) through
direct removal,
filling,
hydrological
interruption, or
other means?
d. Would the
project interfere
substantially
with the
movement of
any resident or
migratory fish or
wildlife species
or with
established
resident or
migratory wildlife
corridors, or
impede the use
of wildlife
nursery sites?
LTS None None applicable based on the project-
specific analysis conducted in this SCEA.
None N/A
e. Would the
project conflict
with any local
policies or
ordinances
protecting
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 41
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
biological
resources, such
as a tree
preservation
policy or
ordinance?
f. Would the
project conflict
with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation
Plan, Natural
Conservation
Community
Plan, or other
approved local,
regional, or state
habitat
conservation
plan?
NI None None None N/A
III. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Would the
project cause
a substantial
adverse
change in the
significance of
a historical
resource
pursuant to
Section
15064.5?
LTS None 2.11-2. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement the
following measures where feasible
and necessary based on project-
and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• Before construction activities,
project sponsors shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to
conduct a record search at the
appropriate Information
Center to determine whether
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-
2 is applicable to the proposed project.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 42
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
b. Would the
project cause
a substantial
adverse
change in the
significance of
a unique
archaeological
resource
pursuant to
Section
15064.5?
c. Would the
project disturb
any human
remains,
including those
interred
outside of
dedicated
cemeteries.
the project area has been
previously surveyed and
whether resources were
identified. When
recommended by the
Information Center, project
sponsors shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to
conduct archaeological
surveys before construction
activities. Project sponsors
shall follow recommendations
identified in the survey, which
may include activities such as
subsurface testing, designing
and implementing a Worker
Environmental Awareness
Program, construction
monitoring by a qualified
archaeologist, avoidance of
sites, or preservation in place.
• In the event that evidence of
any prehistoric or historic-era
subsurface archaeological
features or deposits are
discovered during
construction-related earth-
moving activities (e.g.,
ceramic shard, trash scatters,
lithic scatters), all ground-
disturbing activity in the area
of the discovery shall be
halted until a qualified
archaeologist can assess the
significance of the find. If the
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 43
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
find is a prehistoric
archeological site, the
appropriate Native American
group shall be notified. If the
archaeologist determines that
the find does not meet the
CRHR standards of
significance for cultural
resources, construction may
proceed. If the archaeologist
determines that further
information is needed to
evaluate significance, a data
recovery plan shall be
prepared. If the find is
determined to be significant
by the qualified archaeologist
(i.e., because the find is
determined to constitute
either an historical resource or
a unique archaeological
resource), the archaeologist
shall work with the project
applicant to avoid disturbance
to the resources, and if
complete avoidance is not
feasible in light of project
design, economics, logistics,
and other factors, follow
accepted professional
standards in recording any
find including submittal of the
standard DPR Primary
Record forms (Form DPR
523) and location information
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 44
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
to the appropriate California
Historical Resources
Information System office for
the project area.
• Project sponsors shall comply
with existing local regulations
and policies that exceed or
reasonably replace any of the
above measures that protect
archaeological resources.
IV. ENERGY
a. Would the
project result in
potentially
significant
environmental
impact due to
wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of
energy
resources,
during project
construction or
operation?
b. Would the
project conflict
with or obstruct
a state or local
plan for
renewable
energy or
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 45
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
energy
efficiency?
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project
directly or
indirectly cause
potential
substantial
adverse effects,
including the risk
of loss, injury, or
death involving:
ai. 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
based on
other
substantial
evidence of a
known fault?
Refer to
Division of
Mines and
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 46
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
Geology
Special
Publication
42.
aii. Strong
seismic
ground
shaking?
a.iii Would the
project directly
or indirectly
cause
potential
substantial
adverse
effects,
including the
risk of loss,
injury, or death
involving
seismic-
related ground
failure,
including
liquefaction?
S None None V-1. Prior to approval of construction
permits, the applicant shall retain a
qualified geologist to prepare a site-
specific design-level geotechnical
exploration as part of the design
process. The exploration shall
include laboratory soil testing to
provide additional data for
preparation of specific
recommendations regarding the
following items:
• Grading, existing fill removal,
and fill compaction;
• Consolidation settlement;
• Liquefaction settlement;
• Ground lurching;
• Lateral spreading;
• Site Specific Seismic Hazard
Analysis (if required);
• Foundation design;
• Retaining walls;
• Site drainage and
landscaping irrigation; and
• Pavement recommendations.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 47
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
The project applicant shall submit
results of the design-level
geotechnical exploration to the City’s
Planning Division and/or City
Engineer for review and approval.
a.iv Would the
project directly
or indirectly
cause potential
substantial
adverse effects,
including the
risk of loss,
injury, or death
involving
landslides?
LTS None None None N/A
b. Would the
project result in
substantial soil
erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
LTS None None None N/A
c. Would the
project 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
S None None Implement Mitigation Measure V-1. LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 48
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
spreading,
subsidence,
liquefaction or
collapse?
d. Would the
project be
located on
expansive soil,
as defined in
Table 18-1B of
the Uniform
Building Code
(1994), creating
substantial direct
or indirect risks
to life or
property?
LTS None None None N/A
e. Would the
project 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?
NI None None None N/A
f. Would the
project directly
or indirectly
LTS None 2.11-3. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures where feasible and
As described in further detail in Section V,
Geology and Soils, of this SCEA, a records
search of the UC Berkeley Museum of
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 49
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site
or unique
geologic
feature?
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• Before construction activities,
project sponsors shall
conduct a record search using
an appropriate database,
such as the UC Berkeley
Museum of Paleontology to
determine whether the project
area has been previously
surveyed and whether
resources were identified.
• If record searches indicate
that the project is located in an
area likely to contain
important paleontological,
and/or geological resources,
such as sedimentary rocks
which have yielded significant
terrestrial and other fossils,
project sponsors shall retain a
qualified paleontologist to
train all construction
personnel involved with
earthmoving activities about
the possibility of encountering
fossils. The appearance and
types of fossils likely to be
seen during construction will
be described. Construction
personnel will be trained
about the proper notification
Paleontology was conducted and
determined that known fossils do not exist
on the project site. As such, Plan Bay Area
EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-3 has already
been implemented. No further mitigation is
required.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 50
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
procedures should fossils be
encountered.
• If paleontological resources
are discovered during
earthmoving activities, the
construction crew will be
directed to immediately cease
work in the vicinity of the find
and notify the implementing
agencies and/or project
sponsors. The project
sponsor will retain a qualified
paleontologist for
identification and salvage of
fossils so that construction
delays can be minimized. The
paleontologist will be
responsible for implementing
a recovery plan which could
include the following:
o in the event of
discovery, salvage of
unearthed fossil
remains, typically
involving simple
excavation of the
exposed specimen but
possibly also plaster-
jacketing of large
and/or fragile
specimens, or more
elaborate quarry
excavations of richly
fossiliferous deposits;
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 51
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
o recovery of
stratigraphic and
geologic data to
provide a context for
the recovered fossil
remains, typically
including description of
lithologies of fossil-
bearing strata,
measurement and
description of the
overall stratigraphic
section, and
photographic
documentation of the
geologic setting;
o laboratory preparation
(cleaning and repair) of
collected fossil remains
to a point of curation,
generally involving
removal of enclosing
rock material,
stabilization of fragile
specimens (using glues
and other hardeners),
and repair of broken
specimens;
o cataloging and
identification of
prepared fossil
remains, typically
involving scientific
identification of
specimens, inventory
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 52
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
of specimens,
assignment of catalog
numbers, and entry of
data into an inventory
database;
o transferal, for storage,
of cataloged fossil
remains to an
appropriate repository,
with consent of
property owner;
o preparation of a final
report summarizing the
field and laboratory
methods used, the
stratigraphic units
inspected, the types of
fossils recovered, and
the significance of the
curated collection; and
o project sponsors shall
comply with existing
local regulations and
policies that exceed or
reasonably replace any
of the above measures
that protect
paleontological or
geologic resources.
VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Would the
project generate
greenhouse gas
emissions, either
directly or
LTS None None applicable based on the project-
specific analysis conducted in this SCEA.
None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 53
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
indirectly, that
may have a
significant
impact on the
environment?
b. Would the
project conflict
with an
applicable plan,
policy or
regulation
adopted for the
purpose of
reducing the
emissions of
greenhouse
gasses?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Would the
project create a
significant
hazard to the
public or the
environment
through the
routine
transport, use,
or disposal of
hazardous
materials?
LTS None None None N/A
b. Would the
project create a
significant
hazard to the
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 54
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
public or the
environment
through
reasonably
foreseeable
upset and
accident
conditions
involving the
likely release of
hazardous
materials into
the
environment?
c. Would the
project emit
hazardous
emissions or
handle
hazardous or
acutely
hazardous
materials,
substances, or
waste within
one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed
school?
NI None None None N/A
d. Would the
project be
located on a site
which is
included on a list
of hazardous
NI None 2.13-4 Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.13-4, a Phase I ESA
was prepared for the proposed project.
Overall, the Phase I ESA did not identify any
Recognized Environmental Conditions
(RECs), nor any existing on-site or off-site
NI
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 55
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
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?
• If the project is located on or
near a hazardous materials
and/or waste site pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5, or has the potential
for residual hazardous
materials and/or waste as a
result of location and/or prior
uses, the project sponsor
shall prepare a Phase I ESA
in accordance with the
American Society for Testing
and Materials’ E-1527-05
standard. For work requiring
any demolition or renovation,
the Phase I ESA shall make
recommendations for any
hazardous building materials
survey work that shall be
done. All recommendations
included in a Phase I ESA
prepared for a site shall be
implemented. If a Phase I
ESA indicates the presence or
likely presence of
contamination, the
implementing agency shall
require a Phase II ESA, and
recommendations of the
Phase II ESA shall be fully
implemented.
hazards that could be exacerbated by
development of the project. As such,
preparation of a Phase II ESA is not
warranted.
Additional information regarding the results
of the Phase I ESA is available in Section
VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of
this SCEA.
Based on the above, Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.13-4 has been fully
implemented. No further mitigation is
required.
e. For a project
located within an
airport land use
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 56
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
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 or
excessive noise
for people
residing or
working in the
project area?
f. Would the
project impair
implementation
of or physically
interfere with an
adopted
emergency
response plan or
emergency
evacuation
plan?
LTS None None None N/A
g. Would the
project expose
people or
structures, either
directly or
indirectly, to the
risk of loss,
injury or death
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 57
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
involving
wildland fires?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Would the
project violate
any water quality
standards or
waste discharge
requirements or
otherwise
substantially
degrade surface
or ground water
quality?
LTS None None None N/A
b. Would the
project
substantially
decrease
groundwater
supplies or
interfere
substantially
with
groundwater
recharge such
that the project
may impede
sustainable
groundwater
management of
the basin?
e. Would the
project conflict
with or obstruct
implementation
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 58
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
of a water
quality control
plan or
sustainable
groundwater
management
plan?
Would the project
substantially alter
the existing
drainage pattern of
the site or area,
including through
the alteration of
the course of a
stream or river or
through the
addition of
impervious
surfaces, in a
manner which
would:
c.i Result in
substantial
erosion or
siltation on- or
off-site;
c.ii Substantially
increase the rate
or amount of
surface runoff in
a manner which
would result in
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 59
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
flooding on- or
offsite; or
c.iii 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?
c.iv Would the
project
substantially
alter the existing
drainage pattern
of the site or
area, including
through the
alteration of the
course of a
stream or river
or through the
addition of
impervious
surfaces, in a
manner which
NI None 2.5-4(c). Implementing agencies shall require
project sponsors to incorporate the
appropriate adaptation strategy or
strategies to reduce the impacts of
sea level rise on specific local
transportation and land use
development projects, where
feasible, based on project- and site-
specific considerations. Potential
adaptation strategies are included in
the Adaptation Strategies (see
Appendix F of this [Plan Bay Area]
Draft EIR).
While the effects of sea level rise on future
residents is beyond the scope of CEQA,
insofar as it pertains to the environment’s
effect on the project, this issue has been
addressed given the SCEA’s reliance on the
Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA streamlining
purposes.
Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c), a Technical
Memorandum regarding Sea Level Rise
Strategy was prepared for the proposed
project by BKF Engineers.7 The Plan Bay
Area 2040 EIR determined that sea level
rise projections for the year 2050 range from
4.8 and 23.9 inches. The floor elevations of
NI
7 BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum: PS Business Parks – Sea Level Rise Strategy. March 22, 2021.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 60
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
would impede or
redirect flood
flows?
the proposed buildings have been designed
to elevation 12.90 feet and 13.10 feet above
sea level. Considering that the proposed
building elevations are approximately three
feet above the current 100-year base flood
elevation and approximately one foot above
the current 500-year base flood elevation,
the proposed project, as currently designed,
reduces the potential impacts from sea level
rise to a less than significant level by
elevating the building finished floors above
the 2050 sea level rise projections. The
minimum floor elevations above will be
imposed as a condition of approval on the
project. As a result, Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c) has already
been implemented. No further mitigation is
required.
d. Would the
project, in flood
hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones,
risk release of
pollutants due to
project
inundation?
NI None None None N/A
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Would the
project
physically divide
an established
community?
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 61
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
b. Would the
project cause a
significant
environmental
impact due to a
conflict with any
land use plan,
policy, or
regulation
adopted for the
purpose of
avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental
effect?
X. NOISE
a. Would the
project result in
generation of a
substantial
temporary or
permanent
increase in
ambient noise
levels in the
vicinity of the
project in excess
of standards
established in
the local general
plan or noise
ordinance, or
applicable
standards of
other agencies?
LTS None 2.6-1(a). To reduce construction noise levels,
implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall:
• comply with local
construction-related noise
standards, including
restricting construction
activities to permitted hours
as defined under local
jurisdiction regulations (e.g.;
Alameda County Code
restricts construction noise to
between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm
on weekdays and between
8:00 am and 5:00 pm on
weekend);
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-
1(a) is applicable to the proposed project.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 62
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
• properly maintain
construction equipment and
outfit construction equipment
with the best available noise
suppression devices (e.g.
mufflers, silencers, wraps);
• prohibit idling of construction
equipment for extended
periods of time in the vicinity
of sensitive receptors;
• locate stationary equipment
such as generators,
compressors, rock crushers,
and cement mixers a
minimum of 50 feet from
sensitive receptors, but
further if possible;
• erect temporary construction-
noise barriers around the
construction site when
adjacent occupied sensitive
land uses are present within
75 feet;
• use noise control blankets on
building structures as
buildings are erected to
reduce noise emission from
the site; and
• use cushion blocks to dampen
impact noise from pile driving.
2.6-2. For all new development that could
be located within the 70 dBA CNEL
noise contour of a roadway (within
270 feet of the roadway’s centerline
Although not required by CEQA, consistent
with the Plan Bay Area EIR, the applicant
shall prepare a transportation noise study,
based on the final development plans for the
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 63
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
based on freeways with the greatest
volumes in the region), a site specific
noise study shall be conducted by a
qualified acoustical engineer or
noise specialist, to evaluate noise
exposure at new receptors and
recommend appropriate measures
to reduce noise exposure. To reduce
exposure from traffic-noise, lead
agencies and/or project sponsors
shall consider mitigation measures
including, but not limited to those
identified below:
• design adjustments to
proposed roadway or transit
alignments to reduce noise
levels in noise sensitive areas
(e.g., below-grade roadway
alignments can effectively
reduce noise levels in nearby
areas);
• use techniques such as
landscaped berms, dense
plantings, reduced-noise
paving materials, and traffic
calming measures in the
design of their transportation
improvements;
• contribute to the insulation of
buildings or construction of
noise barriers around
sensitive receptor properties
adjacent to the transportation
improvement;
project. The City shall review and approve
the transportation noise study prior to
issuance of building permits. The
transportation noise study shall comply with
the requirements of Plan Bay Area EIR
mitigation measures 2.6-3(a), 2.6-3(b), and
2.6-4(a).
The removal of the northwestern and
southwestern slip lanes at the existing
intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo
Avenue/Produce Avenue, is a safety-related
improvement and would not increase vehicle
capacity of the roadway. Thus, these
improvements would not noticeably increase
vehicle traffic noise, and the transportation
related measures of this mitigation measure
are not applicable.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 64
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
• use land use planning
measures, such as zoning,
restrictions on development,
site design, and buffers to
ensure that future
development is noise
compatible with adjacent
transportation facilities and
land uses;
• construct roadways so that
they are depressed below-
grade of the existing sensitive
land uses to create an
effective barrier between new
roadway lanes, roadways, rail
lines, transit centers, park- n-
ride lots, and other new noise
generating facilities; and
• maximize the distance
between noise-sensitive land
uses and new noise-
generating facilities and
transportation systems.
2.6-3(a). When finalizing development project
site plans, noise-sensitive outdoor
use areas shall be sited as far away
from adjacent noise sources as
possible and site plans shall be
designed to shield noise-sensitive
spaces with buildings or noise
barriers whenever possible.
2.6-3(b). When finalizing development project
site plans or transportation project
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 65
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
design, sufficient setback between
occupied structures and the railroad
tracks shall be provided to minimize
noise exposure to the extent
feasible.
2.6-4(a). When finalizing site plans for a
development or transportation
project, implementing agencies shall
conduct a project-level noise and
vibration assessments for new
residential or other sensitive land
uses to be located within 200 feet of
an existing rail line. These studies
shall be conducted by a qualified
acoustical engineer or noise
specialist to determine vibration
levels at these projects and
recommend feasible mitigation
measures (e.g., insulated windows
and walls, sound walls or barriers,
distance setbacks, or other
construction or design measures)
that would reduce vibration-noise to
an acceptable level.
2.6-5. To reduce exposure to new and
existing sensitive receptors from
non-transportation noise associated
with projected development,
implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
Two emergency generators may be utilized
on-site, and thus, the first bullet of Plan Bay
Area Mitigation Measure 2.6-5 is applicable
to the proposed project.
As discussed in Section X, Noise, the
proposed buildings would include
mechanical equipment generally associated
with building ventilation, such as rooftop air-
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 66
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• Local agencies approving
land use projects shall require
that routine testing and
preventive maintenance of
emergency electrical
generators be conducted
during the less sensitive
daytime hours (per the
applicable local municipal
code). Electrical generators or
other mechanical equipment
shall be equipped with noise
control (e.g., muffler) devices
in accordance with
manufacturers’ specifications.
• Local agencies approving
land use projects shall require
that external mechanical
equipment, including HVAC
units, associated with
buildings incorporate features
designed to reduce noise to
below 70 dBA CNEL or the
local applicable noise
standard. These features
may include, but are not
limited to, locating equipment
within equipment rooms or
enclosures that incorporate
noise reduction features, such
as acoustical louvers, and
exhaust and intake silencers.
conditioning units, ventilation fans, and heat
pumps. According to the Technical Noise
Study, the mechanical noise from the
proposed heat pumps and dedicated
outside air system would not generate
enough noise to exceed the applicable
General Plan noise level standards.
As a result, this SCEA demonstrates
compliance with the second bullet of Plan
Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-5. No
further mitigation is required.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 67
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
Equipment enclosures shall
be oriented so that major
openings (i.e., intake louvers,
exhaust) are directed away
from nearby noise-sensitive
receptors.
b. Would the
project result in
generation of
excessive
groundborne
vibration or
groundborne
noise levels?
LTS None 2.6-1(b). To reduce construction vibration
levels, implementing agencies
and/or project sponsors shall comply
with the following:
• to minimize disturbance of
receptors within 550 feet of
pile-driving activities,
implement “quiet” pile-driving
technology (such as pre-
drilling of piles and the use of
more than one pile driver to
shorten the total pile driving
duration), where feasible, in
consideration of geotechnical
and structural requirements
and conditions; and
• to reduce structural damage,
where pile driving is proposed
within 50 feet of an older or
historic building, engage a
qualified geotechnical
engineer and qualified historic
preservation professional (for
designated historic buildings
only) and/or structural
engineer to conduct a pre-
construction assessment of
existing subsurface
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-
1(b) is applicable to the proposed project.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 68
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
conditions and the structural
integrity of nearby (i.e., within
50 feet) historic structures that
would be exposed to pile-
driving activity. If
recommended by the pre-
construction assessment, for
structures or facilities within
50 feet of pile-driving
activities, the project
sponsors shall require ground
vibration monitoring of nearby
historic structures. Such
methods and technologies
shall be based on the specific
conditions at the construction
site such as, but not limited to,
the pre-construction
surveying of potentially
affected historic structures
and underpinning of
foundations of potentially
affected structures, as
necessary. The
preconstruction assessment
shall include a monitoring
program to detect ground
settlement or lateral
movement of structures in the
vicinity of pile-driving activities
and identify corrective
measures to be taken should
monitored vibration levels
indicate the potential for
building damage. In the event
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 69
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
of unacceptable ground
movement with the potential
to cause structural damage,
all impact work shall cease
and corrective measures shall
be implemented to minimize
the risk to the subject, or
adjacent, historic structure.
c. For a project
located within
the vicinity of a
private airstrip or
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?
LTS None 2.6-6. To reduce exposure from airport-
related noise, implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors
shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on
project- and site-specific
considerations that include, but are
not limited to:
Local lead agencies for all new
development proposed to be located
within an existing airport influence
zone, as defined by the locally
adopted airport land use
compatibility plan or local general
plan, shall require a site-specific
noise compatibility. The study shall
consider and evaluate existing
aircraft noise, based on specific
aircraft activity data for the airport in
question, and shall include
recommendations for site design
and building construction to ensure
compliance with interior noise levels
of 45 dBA CNEL, such that the
potential for sleep disturbance is
minimized.
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-
6 is applicable to the proposed project.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 70
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
XII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project
result in
substantial
adverse physical
impacts
associated with
the provision of
new or physically
altered
governmental
facilities, need for
new or physically
altered
governmental
facilities, the
construction of
which could cause
significant
environmental
impacts, in order
to maintain
acceptable service
ratios, response
times or other
performance
objectives for any
of the public
services:
a. Fire
protection?
b. Police
protection?
c. Schools?
LTS None 2.14-1. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include but are not limited to:
• Prior to approval of new
development projects, local
agencies shall ensure that
adequate public services, and
related infrastructure and
utilities, will be available to
meet or satisfy levels
identified in the applicable
local general plan or service
master plan, through
compliance with existing local
policies related to minimum
levels of service for schools,
police protection, fire
protection, medical
emergency services, and
other government services
(e.g., libraries, prisons, social
services). Compliance may
include requiring projects to
either provide the additional
services required to meet
service levels, or pay fees
towards the project’s fair
share portion of the required
services pursuant to adopted
fee programs and State law.
As described in further detail in Section XII,
Public Services, of this SCEA, adequate
public services exist to serve the proposed
project. As such, this SCEA demonstrates
compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.14-1. No further
mitigation is required.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 71
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
d. Parks?
e. Other Public
Facilities?
XIII. RECREATION
a. Would the
project increase
the use of
existing
neighborhood
and regional
parks or other
recreational
facilities such
that substantial
physical
deterioration of
the facility would
occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project
include
recreational
facilities or
require the
construction or
expansion of
recreational
facilities which
might have an
adverse physical
effect on the
environment?
LTS None None applicable based on the project-
specific analysis conducted in this SCEA.
None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 72
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
XIV. TRANSPORTATION
a. Would the
project conflict
with a program,
plan, ordinance,
or policy
addressing the
circulation
system,
including transit,
roadway,
bicycle, and
pedestrian
facilities?
LTS None None None N/A
b. Would the
project conflict
or be
inconsistent with
CEQA
Guidelines
section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
LTS None 2.1-3(b). Transportation demand
management (TDM) strategies shall
be incorporated into individual land
use and transportation projects and
plans, as part of the planning
process. Local agencies shall
incorporate strategies identified in
the Federal Highway
Administration’s publication:
Integrating Demand Management
into the Transportation Planning
Process: A Desk Reference (August
2012) into the planning process
(FHWA 2012). For example, the
following strategies may be included
to encourage use of transit and non-
motorized modes of transportation
and reduce vehicle miles traveled on
the region’s roadways:
A TDM has been prepared for the proposed
project, and is included as Appendix H to
this SCEA. The City will require
implementation of the TDM as part of the
project conditions of approval. As such,
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-
3(b) has been fully implemented. No further
mitigation is required.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 73
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
• include TDM mitigation
requirements for new
developments;
• incorporate supporting
infrastructure for non-
motorized modes, such as,
bike lanes, secure bike
parking, sidewalks, and
crosswalks;
• provide incentives to use
alternative modes and reduce
driving, such as, universal
transit passes, road and
parking pricing;
• implement parking
management programs, such
as parking cash-out, priority
parking for carpools and
vanpools;
• develop TDM-specific
performance measures to
evaluate project-specific and
system-wide performance;
• incorporate TDM
performance measures in the
decision-making process for
identifying transportation
investments;
• implement data collection
programs for TDM to
determine the effectiveness of
certain strategies and to
measure success over time;
and
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 74
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
• set aside funding for TDM
initiatives.
The increase in per capita VMT on
facilities experiencing LOS F
represents a significant impact
compared to existing conditions. To
assess whether implementation of
these specific mitigation strategies
would result in measurable traffic
congestion reductions,
implementing actions may need to
be further refined within the overall
parameters of the proposed Plan
and matched to local conditions in
any subsequent project-level
environmental analysis.
c. Would the
project
substantially
increase
hazards due to a
geometric
design feature
(e.g., sharp
curves or
dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible
uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
S None 2.1-7. Implementing agencies shall require
implementation of best practice
strategies regarding construction
activities on the transportation
system and apply recommended
applicable mitigation measures as
defined by state and federal
agencies. Examples of mitigation
measures include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• prepare a transportation
construction plan for all
phases of construction;
• establish construction
phasing/staging schedule and
sequence that minimizes
impacts of a work zone on
XIII-1. Prior to final certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall
design and construct the following
off-site improvement to the
satisfaction of the City to reduce
hazards to project-generated person
trips:
• The project shall remove the
northwestern and
southwestern slip lanes at the
intersection of Airport
Boulevard/San Mateo
Avenue/Produce Avenue, as
identified in the design
concepts by the City of South
San Francisco shown in
Figure 3-1 of the
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 75
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
traffic by using operationally-
sensitive phasing and staging
throughout the life of the
project;
• identify arrival/departure
times for trucks and
construction workers to avoid
peak periods of adjacent
street traffic and minimize
traffic affects;
• identify optimal delivery and
haul routes to and from the
site to minimize impacts to
traffic, transit, pedestrians,
and bicyclists;
• identify appropriate detour
routes for bicycles and
pedestrians in areas affected
by construction;
• coordinate with local transit
agencies and provide for
relocation of bus stops and
ensure adequate wayfinding
and signage to notify transit
users;
• preserve emergency vehicle
access;
• implement public awareness
strategies to educate and
reach out to the public,
businesses, and the
community concerning the
project and work zone (e.g.,
brochures and mailers, press
releases/media alerts);
Transportation Impact
Analysis. This mitigation
would replace these slip lanes
with tighter curb radii, add
directional curb ramps, stripe
high-visibility continental
crosswalks, and stripe
southbound and eastbound
bicycle lane approaches at
the intersection. Removing
slip lanes would help slow
right-turning vehicles,
providing a safer experience
for bicycles and pedestrians.
Enhanced crosswalks will
also provide shorter crossing
distances for pedestrians,
reducing their exposure to
vehicle traffic. The project
shall review existing
intersection signal timing and
adjust if necessary, to
accommodate the new
pedestrian crossing times.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 76
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
• provide a point of contact for
residents, employees,
property owners, and visitors
to obtain construction
information, and provide
comments and questions;
• provide current and/or real-
time information to road users
regarding the project work
zone (e.g., changeable
message sign to notify road
users of lane and road
closures and work activities,
temporary conventional signs
to guide motorists through the
work zone); and
• encourage construction
workers to use transit,
carpool, and other
sustainable transportation
modes when commuting to
and from the site.
d. Would the
project result in
inadequate
emergency
access?
LTS None None None N/A
XV. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project
cause a
substantial
adverse change in
the significance of
a tribal cultural
resource, defined
LTS None Implement Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measure 2.11-2.
2.11-5. If the implementing agency
determines that a project may cause
a substantial adverse change to a
TCR, and measures are not
The City of South San Francisco has
provided notification of the proposed project
to Tribes identified by the Native American
Heritage Commission, pursuant to PRC
Section 21080.3.2. No Tribe requested
consultation.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 77
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
in Public
Resources Code
section 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:
a. 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
section
5020.1(k).
b. A resource
determined by
the lead agency,
otherwise identified in the
consultation process required under
PRC Section 21080.3.2,
implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement the
following measures where feasible
and necessary to address site-
specific impacts to avoid or minimize
the significant adverse impacts:
• Within 14 days of determining
that a project application is
complete, or to undertake a
project, the lead agency must
provide formal notification, in
writing, to the tribes that have
requested notification of
proposed projects in the lead
agency’s jurisdiction. If it
wishes to engage in
consultation on the project,
the tribe must respond to the
lead agency within 30 days of
receipt of the formal
notification. The lead agency
must begin the consultation
process with the tribes that
have requested consultation
within 30 days of receiving the
request for consultation.
Consultation concludes when
either: 1) the parties agree to
measures to mitigate or avoid
a significant effect, if a
significant effect exists, on a
The remaining requirements of Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 will be
carried out if necessary (e.g., TCRs are
found during construction).
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 78
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
in its discretion
and supported
by substantial
evidence, to be
significant
pursuant to
criteria set forth
in subdivision (c)
of Public
Resources Code
Section 5024.1.
In applying the
criteria set forth
in subdivision (c)
of Public
Resources Code
Section 5024.1,
the lead agency
shall consider
the significance
of the resource
to a California
Native American
tribe.
tribal cultural resource, or 2) a
party, acting in good faith and
after reasonable effort,
concludes that mutual
agreement cannot be
reached.
• Public agencies shall, when
feasible, avoid damaging
effects to any TCR (PRC
Section 21084.3 (a).). If the
lead agency determines that a
project may cause a
substantial adverse change to
a tribal cultural resource, and
measures are not otherwise
identified in the consultation
process, new provisions in the
PRC describe mitigation
measures that, if determined
by the lead agency to be
feasible, may avoid or
minimize the significant
adverse impacts (PRC
Section 21084.3 (b)).
• Examples include:
A. Avoidance and
preservation of the
resources in place,
including, but not
limited to, planning and
construction to avoid
the resources and
protect the cultural and
natural context, or
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 79
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
planning greenspace,
parks, or other open
space, to incorporate
the resources with
culturally appropriate
protection and
management criteria.
B. Treating the resource
with culturally
appropriate dignity
taking into account the
tribal cultural values
and meaning of the
resource, including, but
not limited to, the
following:
Protecting the
cultural character
and integrity of the
resource
Protecting the
traditional use of
the resource
Protecting the
confidentiality of
the resource.
C. Permanent
conservation
easements or other
interests in real
property, with culturally
appropriate
management criteria
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 80
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
for the purposes of
preserving or utilizing
the resources or
places.
D. Protecting the
resource.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Would the
project require
or result in the
relocation or
construction of
new or
expanded water,
wastewater
treatment, or
storm water
drainage,
electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunicati
ons facilities, the
construction or
relocation of
which could
cause significant
environmental
effects?
LTS None 2.12-3(a). Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project-and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA
review of individual future
projects, implementing
agencies and project
sponsors shall determine
whether sufficient stormwater
drainage facilities exist for a
proposed project. These
CEQA determinations must
ensure that the proposed
development can be served
by its existing or planned
drainage capacity. If
adequate stormwater
drainage facilities do not exist,
project sponsors shall
coordinate with the
appropriate utility and service
provider to ensure that
adequate facilities could
accommodate the increased
As part of this CEQA analysis, it has been
determined that sufficient stormwater
drainage, water supply, and wastewater
treatment facilities exist to serve the
proposed project. Therefore, this SCEA
demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-3(a) and
2.12-4.
Refer to Section XVI, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this SCEA IS for additional
information.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 81
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
demand, and if not,
infrastructure and facility
improvements shall be
identified in each project’s
CEQA determination. The
relevant public service
provider or utility shall be
responsible for undertaking
project-level review as
necessary to provide CEQA
clearance for new facilities.
• For projects of greater than 1
acre in size, reduce
stormwater runoff caused by
construction by implementing
stormwater control best
practices, based on those
required for a SWPPP.
• Model and implement a
stormwater management plan
or site design that prevents
the post-development peak
discharge rate and quantity
from exceeding
predevelopment rates.
2.12-4. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• For projects that could
increase demand on water
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 82
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
and wastewater treatment
facilities, project sponsors
shall coordinate with the
relevant service provider to
ensure that the existing public
services and utilities could
accommodate the increase in
demand. If the current
infrastructure servicing the
project site is found to be
inadequate, infrastructure
improvements for the
appropriate public service or
utility shall be identified in
each project’s CEQA
documentation. The relevant
public service provider or
utility shall be responsible for
undertaking project-level
review as necessary to
provide CEQA clearance for
new facilities. Further,
Mitigation Measures 2.12-
1(a), 2.12-1(b), 2.12-1(c), and
2.12-2 would reduce water
demand and wastewater
generation, and subsequently
reduce the need for new or
expanded water and
wastewater treatment
facilities. Mitigation Measures
2.12-3(a), 2.12-3(b), and
2.12-3(c) would also mitigate
the impact of additional
stormwater runoff from land
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 83
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
use and transportation
projects on existing
wastewater treatment
facilities.
2.12-3(b) Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• Transportation projects shall
incorporate stormwater
control, retention, and
infiltration features, such as
detention basins, bioswales,
vegetated median strips, and
permeable paving, early into
the design process to ensure
that adequate acreage and
elevation contours are
planned.
Mitigation Measure 2.12-3(b) pertains to
incorporating drainage facilities in the
design of transportation projects, and thus,
will be required by the City as a project
condition of approval, with respect to the
Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San
Mateo Avenue intersection improvements.
b. Would the
project have
sufficient water
supplies
available to
serve the project
and reasonably
foreseeable
future
development
during normal,
LTS None 2.12-1(a) Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• For projects that could
increase demand for water,
project sponsors shall
coordinate with the relevant
water service provider to
As part of this CEQA analysis, it has been
determined that sufficient water supply is
available to serve the proposed project and
other existing and future development.
Therefore, this SCEA demonstrates
compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a).
Refer to Section XVI, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this SCEA IS for additional
information.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 84
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
dry, and multiple
dry years?
ensure that the provider has
adequate supplies and
infrastructure to
accommodate the increase in
demand. If the current
infrastructure servicing the
project site is found to be
inadequate, infrastructure
improvements shall be
identified in each project’s
CEQA documentation.
• Implement water
conservation measures which
result in reduced demand for
potable water. This could
include reducing the use of
potable water for landscape
irrigation (such as through
drought-tolerant plantings,
water-efficient irrigation
systems, the capture and use
of rainwater) and the use of
water-conserving fixtures
(such as dual-flush toilets,
waterless urinals, reduced
flow faucets).
• Coordinate with the water
provider to identify an
appropriate water
consumption budget for the
size and type of project, and
designing and operating the
project accordingly.
• For projects located in an area
with existing reclaimed water
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 85
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
conveyance infrastructure
and excess reclaimed water
capacity, use reclaimed water
for non-potable uses,
especially landscape
irrigation. For projects in a
location planned for future
reclaimed water service,
projects should install dual
plumbing systems in
anticipation of future use.
Large developments could
treat wastewater onsite to
tertiary standards and use it
for non-potable uses onsite.
2.12-1(b) Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall require the
construction phase of
transportation projects to connect
to reclaimed water distribution
systems for non-potable water
needs, when feasible based on
project- and site-specific
considerations.
2.12-1(c) Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall require
transportation projects with
landscaping to use drought-
resistant plantings or connect to
reclaimed water distribution
systems for irrigation and other
non-potable water needs when
available and feasible based on
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures
2.12-1(b) and (c) are related to water
conservation during design and construction
of transportation projects, and would be
required by the City of South San Francisco
in the project’s conditions of approval, to the
extent they are applicable to the
improvements at the intersection of Airport
Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo
Avenue.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 86
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
project- and site-specific
considerations.
c. Would the
project 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?
LTS None 2.12-2. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
mitigation measures, where
feasible and necessary based on
project- and site-specific
considerations that include, but are
not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA
review of individual future
projects, implementing
agencies and project
sponsors shall determine
whether sufficient wastewater
treatment capacity exists for a
proposed project. These
CEQA determinations must
ensure that the proposed
development can be served
by its existing or planned
treatment capacity. If
adequate capacity does not
exist, project sponsors shall
coordinate with the relevant
service provider to ensure that
adequate public services and
utilities could accommodate
the increased demand, and if
not, infrastructure
improvements for the
appropriate public service or
utility shall be identified in
each project’s CEQA
As part of this CEQA analysis, it has been
determined that adequate wastewater
treatment facilities exist to serve the
proposed project. Therefore, this SCEA
demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-2.
Refer to Section XVI, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this SCEA IS for additional
information.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 87
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
documentation. The relevant
public service provider or
utility shall be responsible for
undertaking project-level
review as necessary to
provide CEQA clearance for
new facilities.
• Implementing agencies
and/or project sponsors shall
also require compliance with
Mitigation Measure 2.12-1(a),
and MTC shall require
implementation of Mitigation
Measures 2.12-1(b), and/or
2.12-1(c) listed under Impact
2.12-1, as feasible based on
project- and site-specific
considerations to reduce
water usage and,
subsequently, wastewater
flows.
d. Would the
project generate
solid waste in
excess of State
or local
standards, or in
excess of the
capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair
the attainment of
solid waste
reduction goals?
LTS None 2.12-5. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• providing an easily accessible
area that is dedicated to the
collection and storage of non-
hazardous recycling materials
• maintaining or re-using
existing building structures
and materials during building
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12-
5 is applicable to the proposed project.
LTS
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 88
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
e. Would the
project comply
with federal,
state, and local
management
and reduction
statutes and
regulations
related to solid
waste?
renovations and
redevelopment
• using salvaged, refurbished
or reused materials, to help
divert such items from landfills
• for transportation projects,
diverting construction waste
from landfills, where feasible,
through means such as:
o the submission and
implementation of a
construction waste
management plan that
identifies materials to be
diverted from disposal
o establishing diversion
targets, possibly with
different targets for
different types and scales
of development
o helping developments
share information on
available materials with
one another, to aid in the
transfer and use of
salvaged materials; and
• applying the specifications
developed by the
Construction Materials
Recycling Association
(CMRA) to assist contractors
and developers in diverting
materials from construction
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 89
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
and demolition projects,
where feasible (RMC 2006).
XVII. WILDFIRE
If located in or
near state
responsibility
areas or lands
classified as very
high fire hazard
severity zones,
would the project:
a. Substantially
impair an
adopted
emergency
response plan or
emergency
evacuation
plan?
b. Due to slope,
prevailing winds,
and other
factors,
exacerbate
wildfire risks,
and thereby
expose project
occupants to,
pollutant
concentrations
from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 90
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
spread of a
wildfire?
c. Require the
installation or
maintenance of
associated
infrastructure
(such as roads,
fuel breaks,
emergency
water sources,
power lines or
other utilities)
that may
exacerbate fire
risk or that may
result in
temporary or
ongoing impacts
to the
environment?
d. Expose people
or structures to
significant risks,
including
downslope or
downstream
flooding or
landslides, as a
result of runoff,
post-fire slope
instability, or
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 91
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
drainage
changes?
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project
have the
potential to
substantially
degrade the
quality of the
environment,
substantially
reduce the
habitat of a fish
or wildlife
species, cause a
fish or wildlife
population to
drop below
self-sustaining
levels, threaten
to eliminate a
plant or animal
community,
substantially
reduce the
number or
restrict the range
of a rare or
endangered
plant or animal
or eliminate
important
examples of the
major periods of
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 92
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
California history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project
have impacts
that are
individually
limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable"
means that the
incremental
effects of a
project are
considerable
when viewed in
connection with
the effects of
past projects,
the effects of
other current
projects, and the
effects of
probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project
have
environmental
effects which will
cause
substantial
adverse effects
on human
LTS None None None N/A
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant;
Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.
Page 93
June 2021
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Signif-
icance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Signifi-
cance
After
Mitigation
beings, either
directly or
indirectly?
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 94
June 2021
G. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the 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 applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project,
nothing further is required.
I find that the project is a qualified “transit priority project” that satisfies the requirements
of Sections 21155 and 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), and/or a qualified
“residential or mixed use residential project” that satisfies the requirements of Section
21159.28(d) of the PRC, and although the project could have a potentially significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case, because this
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Initial Study identifies
measures that either avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all potentially significant
or significant effects of the project.
__________________________________
Signature Date
Tony Rozzi City of South San Francisco____________
Printed Name For
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 95
June 2021
I. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. 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?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco is located at the northerly border of the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and
federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State
respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS).
The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that
on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to
determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay
Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time
as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the
USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.
In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD
periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to
achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions
through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies.
The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on
October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1,
2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The
most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017
Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy
to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a
plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures
to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy
serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.
The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls,
and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and
federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the
thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of
AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated
nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established
significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone
precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), as well as for PM10, and
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 96
June 2021
PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 4.
Thus, by exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for construction or operational
emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5 a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
Table 4
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017.
In addition to criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a category of environmental
concern. TACs are present in many types of emissions with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of
TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations,
commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars
and trucks release at least 40 different TACs. In terms of health risks, the most volatile contaminants
are diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde.
Gasoline vapors contain several TACs, including benzene, toluene, and xylenes. Public exposure
to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations as well as accidental releases. Health
risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure,
which typically are associated with long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting
cancer. Health effects of exposure to TACs other than cancer include birth defects, neurological
damage, and death.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of
population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems,
proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant
women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects
of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include
residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes,
hospitals, and medical clinics. Existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site are the
single-family residences to the northwest, with the closest being approximately 500 feet away.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR addressed the potential effects of buildout of the General Plan on ambient
air quality and the potential for exposure of people, especially sensitive receptors such as children
or the elderly, to unhealthy pollutant concentrations. See General Plan EIR Chapter 4.4.
a,b,c. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential for implementation of the General Plan to
conflict with the applicable air quality plan, which was determined to be the 1991 Clean Air
Plan, under Impact 4.4-b. The 1991 Clean Air Plan has since been superseded, and the
most recent applicable air quality plan is now the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As such, the analysis
included in the General Plan EIR under Impact 4.4-b is now outdated, and is not considered
further in this SCEA IS. Nonetheless, the following General Plan policies still apply to all new
development projects throughout the City:
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 97
June 2021
• 7.3-G-1: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and
State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants
both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible.
• 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of
alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit and
carpooling.
• 7.3-G-3: Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators
by distancing them from one another.
• 4.1-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the
arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of
various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the
total vehicle-miles traveled.
• 7.3-I-1: Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve
emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including
carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation of air pollution control
measures as required by State and federal statutes.
• 7.3-I-2: Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative
effects of new development on air quality.
d. The General Plan EIR analyzed potential impacts related to dust, including PM10, during
construction activities (Impact 4.4-a). Construction activities would comply with General Plan
Policy 7.3-I-3 as follows:
• 7.3-I-3: Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines.
With implementation of Policy 7.3-I-3, development under the General Plan was concluded
to result in a less-than-significant impact related to the emissions of dust affecting a
substantial number of people.
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.2 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to Air Quality that may result
from implementation of the proposed plan. The Plan Bay Area EIR also discloses and summarizes
the human health impacts that may result from specific pollutants. Where necessary and feasible,
mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to conflicting with or
obstructing an applicable air quality plan, which was determined to be the 2010 and Draft
2017 Clean Air Plan (Impact 2.2-1). As noted in the Plan Bay Area EIR, projected growth
under the Plan could result in the generation of additional emissions from stationary and
mobile sources. However, considering the goal of the Plan is to reduce GHGs from the
transportation sector and focus growth in areas that are served by public transit, the growth
expected to occur under the Plan would be consistent with the goals and measures in the
2010 and 2017 Clean Air Plans. As such, the Plan Bay Area would result in a less-than-
significant impact. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 98
June 2021
would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plan for
CAAQS or NAAQS.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed potential impacts related to a net increase of criteria
pollutants during construction (Impact 2.2-2) and operations from on-road mobile and land
use sources (Impact 2.2-3). As noted under Impact 2.2-2, construction activities related to
implementation of the Plan could result in a substantial increase in criteria pollutants.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.2-2, which requires compliance with all
feasible construction best practices for exhaust and dust, would reduce the potential
impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.2-3 discusses whether implementation of
the Plan would generate a net increase in criteria pollutants from on-road mobile and land
use sources. As noted therein, the Plan would result in a net decrease in ROG, NOX, and
CO emissions, but an anticipated net increase in PM emissions, when compared to
buildout without adoption of the Plan. The impact would be potentially significant.
However, Mitigation Measures 2.2-3(a) through 2.2-3(d) would help reduce PM emissions
from mobile and area-sources, and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial TAC concentrations in Impacts 2.2-4 and 2.2-5. Impact 2.2-4
concluded that because the Plan would result in an overall reduction in TAC emissions
compared to buildout without adoption of the Plan, a less-than-significant impact would
occur. However, as noted under Impact 2.2-5, implementation of the Plan could place new
sensitive receptors in areas where TAC concentrations could result in cancer risk levels
greater than 100 in a million. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority
to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure
2.2-5 (related to reducing TAC exposure), and there may be instances in which site-
specific or project-specific conditions preclude the reduction of all project impacts to less-
than-significant, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant
and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead
agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement Plan
Bay Area EIR mitigation, and the mitigation reduces the impact below the applicable
exposure criteria, the project’s impact related to TACs would be less than significant. In
the case of the proposed project, the City will implement the required mitigation to ensure
that potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.
d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the creation of
objectionable odors resulting from project operation or construction activities affecting a
substantial number of people (Impact 2.2-7). As noted in the Plan Bay Area EIR,
development associated with the Plan is primarily related to residential uses, commercial
facilities, and transportation-related infrastructure projects. Because such projects would
not introduce new operational sources of odors, impacts related to operational emissions
of objectionable odors would not be substantial. Plan-related construction activities could
result in the generation of odors from diesel exhaust or paving activities. However,
construction would be temporary and would be regulated by all applicable BAAQMD
requirements. As such, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan
would not result in the generation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of
people, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 99
June 2021
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-3(a) through 2.2-3(d) would not apply to the proposed
project because the operational screening levels would not be exceeded. Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measures 2.2-2 and 2.2-5(a) would apply to the project, subject to the refinements
discussed in the project-specific mitigation measures:
2.2-2 When screening levels are exceeded (see Table 2.2-8 [of the Plan Bay Area EIR]
or those most currently updated by BAAQMD), implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement measures, where applicable, feasible, and
necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations, that include, but are
not limited to the following:
Construction Best Practices for Exhaust:
• The applicant/general contractor for the project shall submit a list of all off-
road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) that would be operated
for more than 20 hours over the entire duration of project construction,
including equipment from subcontractors, to BAAQMD for review and
certification. The list shall include all information necessary to ensure the
equipment meets the following requirement:
o 1) Be zero emissions OR 2) have engines that meet or exceed
either EPA or ARB Tier 2 off-road emission standards; and 3) have
engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel
Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS), if one is available for the
equipment being used. Equipment with engines that meet Tier 4
Interim or Tier 4 Final emission standards automatically meet this
requirement; therefore, a VDECS would not be required.
o Idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks
shall be limited to no more than two minutes. Clear signage of this
idling restriction shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
o All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned
in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.
o Portable diesel generators shall be prohibited. Grid power electricity
should be used to provide power at construction sites; or propane
and natural gas generators may be used when grid power electricity
is not feasible.
Construction Best Practices for Dust:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. For
projects over five acres in size, soil moisture should be maintained at a
minimum of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or
a moisture probe.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall
be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. Dry power
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 100
June 2021
sweeping should only be performed in conjunction with thorough watering
of the subject roads.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15
mph.
• All roadway, driveway, and sidewalk paving shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be paved as soon as possible after grading.
• All construction sites shall provide a posted sign visible to the public with
the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding
dust complaints. The recommended response time for corrective action
shall be within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s Complaint Line (1-800-334-6367)
shall also be included on posted signs to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended
when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s)
of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at
maximum 50 percent air porosity.
• Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be
planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately
until vegetation is established.
• The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-
disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be
limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed
surfaces at any one time.
• All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off before
leaving the site.
• Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated
with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one
percent.
These BMPs are consistent with recommendations in BAAQMD’s CEQA
Guidelines and Planning Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2010b, BAAQMD 2016).
Applicable mitigation measures shall be required at the time grading permits are
issued.
2.2-5(a) When locating sensitive receptors in TAC risk areas, implementing agencies
and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary
based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited
to the following:
• Install, operate and maintain in good working order a central heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system or other air intake system
in the building, or in each individual unit, that meets or exceeds a minimum
efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 13 (MERV-16 for projects located in
the West Oakland Specific Plan area) or higher. The HVAC system shall
include the following features: Installation of a high efficiency filter and/or
carbon filter to filter particulates and other chemical matter from entering
the building. Either high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters or American
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 101
June 2021
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) certified 85% supply filters shall be used.
• Maintain, repair and/or replace HVAC system on an ongoing and as
needed basis or shall prepare an operation and maintenance manual for
the HVAC system and the filter. The manual shall include the operating
instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule. This manual
shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
for residential projects and/or distributed to the building maintenance staff.
In addition, the applicant shall prepare a separate homeowners manual.
The manual shall contain the operating instructions and the maintenance
and replacement schedule for the HVAC system and the filters.
• Install passive electrostatic filtering systems with low air velocities (i.e., less
than 1 mph).
• Individual and common exterior open space and outdoor activity areas
proposed as part of individual projects shall be located as far away as
possible within the project site boundary, face away major freeways, and
shall be shielded from the source (i.e., the roadway) of air pollution by
buildings or otherwise buffered to further reduce air pollution for project
occupants.
• Locate air intakes and design windows to reduce PM exposure (e.g.,
windows nearest to the roadway do not open).
• If sensitive receptors are located near a distribution center, residents shall
not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where trucks
concentrate to deliver goods.
• Sensitive receptors within buildings shall be located in areas upwind of
major roadway traffic to reduce exposure to reduce cancer risk levels and
exposure to PM2.5.
• Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution
source. Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including
one or more of the following species: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima),
Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X
trichocarpa), California pepper tree (Schinus molle) and Redwoods
(Sequoia sempervirens).
• Loading docks shall be required to include electric hookups for visiting
trucks.
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks at these locations shall be prohibited or
limited to no more than 2 minutes.
• If within the project site, existing and new diesel generators shall meet
ARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.
• Emissions from diesel trucks shall be reduced through establishing truck
routes to avoid residential neighborhoods or other land uses serving
sensitive populations, such as hospitals, schools, and child care centers. A
truck route program, along with truck calming, parking and delivery
restrictions, shall be implemented to direct traffic activity at non-permitted
sources and large construction projects.
These BMPs are consistent with recommendations in BAAQMD’s CEQA
Guidelines and Planning Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2011, BAAQMD 2016).
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 102
June 2021
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was
adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on November 1, 2001. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan,
adopted on April 19, 2017. The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source
controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be
implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB.
BAAQMD rules and regulations and the adopted thresholds of significance have been
developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards
attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent
with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds
associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and
NOX, as well as for PM10 and PM2.5, are listed in Table 4, above. Thus, by exceeding the
BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or
PM2.5, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2016.3.2 – a
statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land
use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including
GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for
various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip
length, average speed, etc. Where project-specific information is available, such
information should be applied in the model. For instance, the project applicant provided
specific information regarding construction phasing and equipment, and Fehr & Peers, the
transportation consultant for the proposed project, provided anticipated trip generation
values. The following project characteristics and site design features were included in the
modeling:
• Construction would begin in November of 2021,8 and occur over approximately 3
years;
• During site preparation, 100 cubic yards (CY) of soil material would be exported
from the site;
• During grading, 16,517 CY of material would be imported, and 26,172 CY of
material would be exported;
• The entire four-acre project site would be disturbed during grading;
• Demolition would involve removal of 93,775-sf of material;
• The project trip generation rate was set to 4.47 daily vehicle trips per unit;
• Two on-site emergency generators could be used during project operations for
testing and maintenance proposed up to approximately six hours per year;
• The project would include on-site pedestrian facility improvements that would
connect to existing facilities in the project area; and
• The project would comply with all applicable provisions of the 2019 California
Building Standards Code (CBSC), including installation of low-flow water fixtures
and LED lights.
8 It is noted that construction scheduling has been updated since the air quality modeling was conducted.
Construction is now anticipated to begin in April of 2022. However, due to the increasingly stringent standards for
construction equipment, the analysis included herein is conservative. Updated modeling with a new construction
start date is not required.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 103
June 2021
All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix A to this SCEA IS.
The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations
are presented and discussed in further detail below. A discussion of the proposed project’s
contribution to cumulative air quality conditions is provided below as well.
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum
unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 5. As shown in
the table, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable
thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.
Table 5
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 26.01 54 NO
NOX 45.99 54 NO
PM10 (exhaust) 0.69 82 NO
PM10 (fugitive) 6.17 None N/A
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.64 54 NO
PM2.5 (fugitive) 1.64 None N/A
Source: CalEEMod, July 2020 (see Appendix A).
All projects under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the
BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which include the following:
1. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
2. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
3. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
4. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
5. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
6. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
visible emissions evaluator.
7. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 104
June 2021
It is noted that the five-minute idling limitation required by BAAQMD’s Basic Construction
Mitigation Measure 5 would be superseded by the two-minute idling limitation established
in Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2. Construction equipment operating on-site
would be limited to a maximum of two minutes of idling time.
The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures listed above would help to further minimize construction-related
emissions. In particular, implementation of the foregoing measures would reduce fugitive
dust emissions resulting from project construction. Even without consideration of
BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as shown in Table 5, construction of
the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants below BAAQMD’s
thresholds of significance. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project construction.
Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum
unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Unmitigated Maximum Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
Threshold? lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr
ROG 16.79 2.82 54 10 NO
NOX 15.21 2.17 54 10 NO
PM10 (exhaust) 0.62 0.05 82 15 NO
PM10 (fugitive) 9.51 1.67 None None N/A
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.62 0.05 54 10 NO
PM2.5 (fugitive) 2.54 0.45 None None N/A
Source: CalEEMod, July 2020 (see Appendix A).
As shown in the table, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the
applicable thresholds of significance. Consequently, the proposed project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project
operation.
Cumulative Emissions
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air
quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative
impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of
AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively
significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact
is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In
developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission
levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The
thresholds of significance presented in Table 4 represent the levels at which a project’s
individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions.9 If a project
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 2-1].
May 2017.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 105
June 2021
exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 4, that project’s emissions would
be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality
impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As presented above, the proposed
project would be below all applicable thresholds for criteria pollutants during construction
and operation. Thus, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Because the proposed project would not
result in construction-related or operational emissions of criteria air pollutants in excess of
BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of
the applicable regional air quality plans would not occur. In addition, the project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. Thus, the
project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant
impact would result.
Although project-specific impacts have been determined to be less than significant, as
discussed above, the Plan Bay Area EIR requires projects utilizing the CEQA streamlining
provisions pursuant to SB 375 to implement the relevant mitigation measures prescribed
within the Plan Bay Area EIR. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2 is
hereby incorporated as requirements of the proposed project.
c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the
types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by
health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air
pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems
are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically
defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly,
the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that
are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and
medical clinics. The existing land uses in the project area consist of commercial and
industrial uses to the east, west, south, and north. The site is not located within the
immediate vicinity of any sensitive receptors. The nearest existing sensitive receptors are
the single-family residences located approximately 500 feet northwest.
The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions and TAC emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.
Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along
streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected
where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.
Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from
the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood.
In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized
CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 106
June 2021
has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a
proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO
emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management
agency plans;
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).
With regard to the first point, the project site falls within the boundaries of the San Mateo
County Congestion Management Program (CMP).10 The purpose of the CMP is to identify
strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop procedures to alleviate and
control congestion, and promote countywide solutions. As noted in the CMP, the CMP
was designed to be consistent with the Plan Bay Area, which provides the framework for
what the Bay Area transportation network should look like in 2040. Considering the
proposed project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area (see Table 3), and the CMP
is consistent with the Plan Bay Area, it follows that the proposed project would be
consistent with the San Mateo County CMP.
With regard to the second and third points, and as discussed in Section XII,
Transportation, of this SCEA IS, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total
of approximately 1,133 daily trips, including 61 AM peak hour trips and 87 PM peak hour
trips. Based on Figure C-1, Existing Traffic Volumes, of the Transportation Study prepared
for the proposed project, traffic volumes at the three study intersections currently range
between 2,207 and 4,210 trips per peak hour. Therefore, the addition of 61 AM peak hour
and 87 PM peak hour trips from the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes
to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour at affected intersections, or to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited. Therefore, based on
the BAAQMD criteria, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact
related to localized CO emissions concentrations and would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO.
TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended
setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not
limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB
has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus,
high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and
constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks
from DPM. More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micrometer in diameter and,
thus, DPM is a subset of the PM2.5 category of pollutants.
10 City/County Association of Government of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management Project
2019. April 9, 2019.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 107
June 2021
The proposed residential building would not involve any land uses or operations that would
be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. While two diesel-powered
emergency generators are proposed on-site, the generators would only be used for non-
emergency testing and maintenance purposes for up to six hours per year and, therefore,
would not subject future residents to substantial concentrations of DPM. As such, the
project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations.
Short-term, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs,
specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions.
Construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the
operational lifetime of the proposed project. Health risks are typically associated with
exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods of time (e.g., 30 years or
greater), whereas the construction period associated with the proposed project would
likely be limited to approximately one year.
All construction equipment and operation thereof for the proposed project would be
regulated per the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to
help reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment, including
DPM. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD
rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. In
addition, construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the day and only
on portions of the site at a time.
Because construction equipment on-site would not operate for long periods of time and
would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not
occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long
periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short
duration of potential exposure to associated emissions, the potential for any one sensitive
receptor in the area to be exposed to concentrations of pollutants for a substantially
extended period of time would be low. In addition, as noted previously, the nearest existing
sensitive receptor is located over 500 feet north of the site. DPM is highly dispersive in
nature, and the concentration of DPM at 500 feet from the source would be substantially
reduced. While the project site is located within the vicinity of existing hotel uses, such
uses are not considered sensitive receptors for TACs according to the CARB Handbook.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to expose any
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Operations of Nearby TAC Sources and effects on Future Receptors
Impacts of the environment on a project (as opposed to impacts of a project on the
environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review.11 While not a CEQA
11 “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant
effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Town of Los Angeles, (2011) 201
Cal.App.4th 455, 473 (Ballona).) The California Supreme Court recently held that “CEQA does not generally require
an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or
residents. What CEQA does mandate… is an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental
hazards.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 392;
see also Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 197
[“identifying the effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is
neither consistent with CEQA's legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes”], quoting Ballona, supra,
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 108
June 2021
consideration, this issue is hereby addressed given the SCEA’s reliance on the Plan Bay
Area EIR for CEQA streamlining purposes and its Mitigation Measure (2.2-5) regarding
TAC Risk Areas. Pursuant to the BAAQMD’s interactive map which shows areas with
estimated elevated levels of TACs, the project site is located within a TAC Risk Area.12
According to BAAQMD, an impact associated with TACs would occur if the aggregate total
of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the
fence line of a source, or from the location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the
project, would exceed the following:13
• An increase in cancer risk levels (from all local sources) of more than 100 persons
in one million;
• A chronic non-cancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or
• An annual average PM2.5 concentration (from all local sources) of 0.8 µg/m3 or
greater.
This health risk assessment was conducted to evaluate all three criteria at the future
residents of the proposed project. The primary sources of TACs that would affect future
residents include: 1) stationary sources (i.e., emergency generators, gas-dispensing
facilities); 2) operations of the Caltrain railway; 3) vehicle traffic along US-101; and 4)
vehicle traffic along other major roadways. Each source type is discussed in further detail
below.
Based on the BAAQMD’s map of Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards, sources
of TACs were identified within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site boundary at the
following addresses:14
• 149 South Linden Avenue;
• 1479 San Mateo Avenue;
• 1430 San Mateo Avenue;
• 303 Commercial Avenue;
• 27 South Linden Avenue;
• 99 Linden Avenue;
• 248 South Airport Boulevard;
• 35 South Linden Avenue;
• 177 South Airport Boulevard; and
• 140 Produce Avenue.
The concentration of PM2.5 from stationary sources at the maximally exposed sensitive
receptor on the project site has been estimated using the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency (AMS/EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD).
201 Cal.App.4th at p. 474.) In the case of the proposed project, the impact of placing future residents within a TAC
Risk Area is considered an existing environmental condition that would affect future users/residents.
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Health Places Interactive Map. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=51c2d0bc59244013ad9d52b8c35cbf66.
Accessed March 2021.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 2-2].
May 2017.
14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65.
Accessed March 2021.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 109
June 2021
Emission rates of PM2.5 from each of the aforementioned stationary sources were provided
by the BAAQMD.15 In addition, modeling parameters for each stationary source type were
selected to be consistent with the San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan:
Technical Support Documentation.16 As part of their Planning Healthy Places initiative, the
BAAQMD modeled the concentration of PM2.5 resulting from major roadways, highways,
and railways, including Caltrain,17 throughout the Bay Area.18
In order to assess the cumulative impacts from all identified TAC sources on the future
residents of the proposed project, the concentrations of PM2.5 from each source
(stationary, major roadway, highway, and railway) were summed at regular intervals
throughout the project site. The associated cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index from
exposure to PM2.5 were calculated using the CARB’s Hotspot Analysis Reporting Program
Version 2 (HARP 2) Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST), which calculates the
cancer and non-cancer health impacts using the risk assessment guidelines of the 2015
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for
Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.19 All cancer risk and hazard index modeling was
performed in accordance with the USEPA’s User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory
Model – AERMOD 20 and the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual.
The results of the health risks assessment are presented in Table 7, below. As shown
therein, the chronic hazard index and concentration of PM2.5 would be below the applicable
thresholds. However, the maximum unmitigated cancer risk would exceed the threshold
of significance.
Table 7
Maximum Unmitigated Health Risk
Cancer Risk (per
million persons)
Chronic
Hazard Index
Concentration of
PM2.5 (µg/m3)
Operations 123.40 <1.0 21 0.42
Thresholds of Significance 100 10.0 0.80
Exceed Thresholds? YES NO NO
Sources: AERMOD, and HARP 2 RAST, March 2021 (see Appendix B).
The results of the cancer risk analysis are visually presented in Figure 10. As shown in
the figure, a portion of the project site is located in an area where the unmitigated cancer
risk would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for cumulative cancer risk.
15 Flores, Areana, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea,
Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. February 11, 2021.
16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support
Documentation. December 2012.
17 It is noted that the Caltrain system is currently in the process of electrification. The electrification of the Caltrain
was considered in the Planning Healthy Places modeling, and any PM2.5 emissions associated with operations of
the Caltrain are a result of the braking mechanism.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources
of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. May 2016.
19 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines,
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments [pg. 8-18]. February 2015.
20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). December
2016.
21 Flores, Areana, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [phone], Briette Shea,
Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. April 5, 2021.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 110
June 2021
Figure 10
Health Risk Assessment Results: Unmitigated TAC Risk Area
The areas shaded in
red represent portions
of the site where the
unmitigated cancer
risk would exceed the
BAAQMD’s cumulative
threshold of
significance.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 111
June 2021
The maximum cumulative cancer risk at the anticipated maximally exposed receptor,
which would be the unit closest to the Caltrain tracks (represented by a white outline in
Figure 10) would be 123.40 cases per million persons. As a result, without mitigation,
implementation of the proposed project could result in a cancer risk in excess of the
BAAQMD’s standards of significance. As shown in Figure 10, only the northwestern
portion of the proposed building on Site 1 includes areas that exceed the threshold. The
remainder of Site 1 and the entirety of Site 2 would be exposed to a less-than-significant
cumulative cancer risk level.
Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a), and as required by the
2019 CBSC, the proposed project would include the provision of MERV 13 filters in the
HVAC system for all units, including units located within the TAC risk area. MERV 13 filters
are rated to capture 80 to 90.9 percent of particles that are 1.3 to 3.0 microns in size, and
over 90 percent of particles that are 3.0 to 10.0 microns in size.22 In addition, the upgrade
from standard home filters to MERV 13 filters has been shown to result in a decrease in
mortality of 0.5 per 1,000 persons.23 Therefore, the inclusion of MERV 13 filters in the
proposed project would dramatically reduce resident PM2.5 exposure. In fact, the
installation of upgraded MERV rating filters has been shown to reduce indoor PM2.5
exposure by 19 to 28 percent.24 A linear relationship exists between PM2.5 concentration
and the associated cancer risk when all other variables, including exposure time, remains
constant. Therefore, in the case of the proposed project, a 19 to 28 percent reduction in
PM2.5 concentration would equate to a 19 to 28 percent reduction in cancer risk. After
installation of MERV 13 filters, the project-specific cancer risk can reasonably be expected
to range between 88.85 to 99.95 cases per million, which is below the applicable threshold
of significance. As a result, after the inclusion of the MERV 13 filters, none of the units
proposed on Site 1 or on Site 2 would be located within the red area shown in Figure 10.
Furthermore, the proposed project would provide additional features consistent with those
listed under Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a), including, but not limited to,
the following:
• The project applicant would maintain, repair and/or replace HVAC systems on an
ongoing and as needed basis; and
• The main courtyard/outdoor activity area has been designed to be located outside
of the TAC Risk Area and would be shielded from pollution sources by the
proposed buildings.
Based on this project-specific health risk assessment, it has been determined that not all
measures included within Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation 2.2-5(a) would be necessary in
order to reduce health risk to an acceptable level. As a result, project-specific Mitigation
Measure I-1, included below, identifies which specific measures are applicable to the
proposed project. The inclusion of such features would reduce the health impact to be
below the BAAQMD’s cumulative health risk threshold of 100 cases per million persons,
as presented in Table 8.
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ): What is a MERV rating? Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating-1. Accessed March 2021.
23 W.J. Fisk and W. R. Chan. Effectiveness and cost of reducing particle-related mortality with particle filtration.
February 1, 2017.
24 M.S. Zuraimi and Zhongchao Tan. Impact of residential building regulations on reducing indoor exposures to
outdoor PM2.5 in Toronto. March 14, 2015.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 112
June 2021
Table 8
Maximum Mitigated Health Risk
Cancer Risk (per
million persons)
Chronic
Hazard Index
Concentration of
PM2.5 (µg/m3)
Operations 88.85-99.95 <1.0 0.42
Thresholds of Significance 100 10.0 0.80
Exceed Thresholds? NO NO NO
Sources: AERMOD, and HARP 2 RAST, March 2021 (see Appendix B).
Lead-Based Paint, Asbestos-Containing Building Material, and Naturally
Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
Lead-Based Paint (LBP) is defined as any paint, varnish, stain, or other applied coating
that has one milligram per cubic centimeter or greater (5,000 micrograms per gram or
5,000 parts per million) of lead by federal guidelines. Lead is a highly toxic material that
may cause a range of serious illnesses, and in some cases death. In buildings constructed
after 1978, LBP is unlikely to be present. Structures built prior to 1978 and especially prior
to the 1960s should be expected to contain LBP.
Asbestos is the name for a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals that are
considered to be “fibrous” and, through processing, can be separated into smaller and
smaller fibers. The fibers are strong, durable, chemical resistant, and resistant to heat and
fire. They are also long, thin and flexible, so they can even be woven into cloth. Because
of these qualities, asbestos was considered an ideal product and has been used in
thousands of consumer, industrial, maritime, automotive, scientific and building products.
However, later discoveries found that, when inhaled, the material caused serious illness.
For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR
1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation (boiler insulation, pipe lagging, and
related materials) and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos-
containing material” unless proven otherwise through sampling in accordance with the
standards of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. Asbestos-containing
materials could include, but are not limited to, plaster, ceiling tiles, thermal systems
insulation, floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, adhesives, and roofing materials.
As noted in the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project, the on-site buildings were
constructed between 1982 and 1993. Therefore, demolition of the buildings is not
expected to result in emissions of LBP or any asbestos-containing building materials.
According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project, the project site
is located down slope and underlain by Franciscan Formation bedrock.25 Based on the
bedrock formation’s association with NOA, ground disturbance associated with
redevelopment of the site could create asbestos-containing dust, which could become
airborne. Construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors could become exposed to
such airborne TACs. Consequently, the proposed project could generate substantial
concentrations of TACs, specifically asbestos, during construction.
25 ENGEO, Incorporated. Hanover – Colma Creek 100 Produce Avenue: Preliminary Geotechnical Report. October
23, 2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 113
June 2021
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, operation of the proposed project would not expose
sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. However, because of the type
of bedrock, the proposed project could have the potential to create asbestos-containing
dust during construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a
potentially significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures
I-1 and I-2 listed below would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-
significant level. The City will require implementation of such mitigation as a condition of
approval for the proposed project.
d. Emissions of concern include those leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions
considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in sections “a”
through “c” above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and
dust.
Per the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance
rather than a health hazard.26 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range
from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and
respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is
dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the
frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive
receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor.
Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence
the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to
determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating
land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and
composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses and
is not located in the vicinity of any such existing or planned land uses.
Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which
could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable.
However, construction activities would be temporary, and hours of operation for
construction equipment would be restricted per South San Francisco Municipal Code
Section 15.14.070, “Work Hours”. Project construction would also be required to comply
with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting
of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize
emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable
odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities. In addition, the
nearest existing sensitive receptors are the Urgent Care Clinic located approximately 300
feet north of the site, and the single-family residences located approximately 500 feet
northwest. Because odors dissipate with distance, any potential objectionable odors
associated with construction would likely disperse prior to reaching nearby sensitive
receptors.
As noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to
implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The measures would
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1.
May 2017.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 114
June 2021
act to reduce construction-related dust by ensuring that haul trucks with loose material are
covered, reducing vehicle dirt track-out, and limiting vehicle speeds within project site,
among other methods, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does
not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, all areas of the
project site not developed with structures would be paved or landscaped. Thus, project
operations would not generate significant amounts of dust that could adversely affect a
substantial number of people.
For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would
not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people. Thus, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and
a less-than-significant impact would result.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impacts
(see discussion ‘c’) to less-than-significant levels.
I-1 Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the project applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with the following design features to the satisfaction of
the City:
• Install, operate and maintain in good working order a central heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system or other air intake system
in the building, or in each individual unit, that meets or exceeds a minimum
efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 13 or higher. The HVAC system shall
include the following features: Installation of a high efficiency filter and/or
carbon filter to filter particulates and other chemical matter from entering
the building. Either high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters or American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) certified 85 percent supply filters shall be used.
• Maintain, repair and/or replace the HVAC system on an ongoing and as
needed basis, and prepare an operation and maintenance manual for the
HVAC system and the filter. The manual shall include the operating
instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule. This manual
shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
for residential projects and/or distributed to the building maintenance staff.
In addition, the applicant shall prepare a separate homeowners manual.
The manual shall contain the operating instructions and the maintenance
and replacement schedule for the HVAC system and the filters.
• Individual and common exterior open space and outdoor activity areas
proposed as part of individual projects shall be located as far away as
possible within the project site boundary, face away major freeways, and
shall be shielded from the source (i.e., the roadway) of air pollution by
buildings or otherwise buffered to further reduce air pollution for project
occupants.
• Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution
source. Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including
one or more of the following species: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima),
Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 115
June 2021
trichocarpa), California pepper tree (Schinus molle) and Redwoods
(Sequoia sempervirens).
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks at these locations shall be prohibited or
limited to no more than 2 minutes.
• If within the project site, existing and new diesel generators shall meet
CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.
I-2 Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, the project applicant shall
contract with a qualified geologist to prepare an evaluation for the potential
presence of Naturally-Occurring Asbestos (NOA). If NOA is not discovered during
the survey, further mitigation related to NOA is not required. If NOA is discovered
during the survey, the project applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan, pursuant to § 93105, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, and subject to
approval by BAAQMD. The applicant shall submit the Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan to the City’s Planning Division for review and approval.
Findings
Air pollutants are generated by nearly all developments and economic activity in the Bay Area.
Air pollution is regulated on the federal, state, and local level, and BAAQMD is the regional agency
that oversees air pollution regulation, planning, and rulemaking. While air quality impacts usually
result from regional trends, individual projects may contribute to such regional trends. BAAQMD
has established quantitative emissions thresholds, which allow for analysis of potential air quality
impacts that may result from an individual project’s emissions. As discussed above, the proposed
project would not result in air quality emissions that would violate the applicable BAAQMD
thresholds of significance. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement all
relevant BAAQMD BMPs, which would further reduce PM emissions. However, because the
project site is located within a TAC Risk Area, the project could result in a health risk impact to
future residents. Implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure I-1, adapted from Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation 2.2-5(a), would reduce any potential health risk related to TACs to a less-
than-significant level. In addition, the project could result in emissions of asbestos-containing dust,
which could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. The implementation of project-specific
Mitigation Measure I-2 would ensure that the potential impact related to NOA exposure would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level. In addition, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.2-2 is required. Based on the above, the project would not result in any
additional environmental effects related to Air Quality.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 116
June 2021
II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
The Bay Area supports numerous distinct natural communities composed of a diversity of
vegetative types that provide habitat for a wide variety of plant and wildlife species. Broad habitat
categories in the region include grasslands, coastal scrubs and chaparral, woodlands and forests,
riparian systems, freshwater and saltwater aquatic habitat, and wetlands.
The project site is currently developed with six commercial buildings and paved areas. Vegetation
on the site is limited to 61 ornamental trees, with the most common species being Brazilian pepper
and Canary Island pines. Because the project site is overlain by impermeable surfaces and
located within a highly developed area of the City, significant habitats or natural communities do
not exist in proximity to the project site. Water features, including wetlands, do not exist on the
project site. Colma Creek runs along the southern edge of the project site. However, Colma Creek
is a concrete-lined channel and subject to substantial urban runoff from the City. Furthermore, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Biogeographic Information and Observation System
does not identify Colma Creek as a designated Aquatic Community. Therefore, Colma Creek is
not likely to support identified special-status or otherwise sensitive species.
For the purposes of this environmental document, “special-status” has been defined to include the
following:
• Plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or
threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal and State Endangered
Species Acts. Both acts afford protection to listed species;
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 117
June 2021
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern, which are
species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue;
• CDFW fully protected species; and
• Species on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists 1 and 2.
Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally do not have special legal status, they are
given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species,
most birds in the U.S., including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) of 1918. Under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.13 of the General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of the General Plan on biological
resources. The General Plan EIR identified potential impacts in terms of degradation of the quality
of the environment or reduction of habitat or wildlife and/or plant populations below self-sustaining
levels.
a-f. Under Impact 4.13-a, the General Plan EIR notes that buildout under the General Plan could
affect sensitive habitats and special-status plant and animal species through direct mortality
or indirectly, through habitat loss. Implementation of the General Plan could also result in
degradation of non-sensitive habitats and common wildlife species, as discussed under
Impact 4.13-c. Development within the City would result in the direct removal of non-native
grassland habitat, and may result in additional habitat loss or degradation during
construction and operations. Such habitat disturbances during construction and operations
could result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive habitats and sensitive plant and
animal species. However, the following policies from the General Plan were identified as
mitigating the effects of development that could occur under the provisions of the General
Plan to a less than significant level.
• 7.1-G-1 Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San
Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered,
Threatened, or Rare.
• 7.1-G-2 Protect and where reasonable and feasible restore saltmarshes and
wetlands.
• 7.1-I-1 Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to ensure that development does
not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list
for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological
resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive
habitat, as depicted in [General Plan EIR] Figure 7-2: Ecologically Sensitive
Habitats. (see Figure 4.13-3 of the [City’s General Plan] DEIR).
• 7.1-I-4 Require development on the wetlands delineated in [General Plan EIR]
Figure 7-2 to complete assessments of biological resources.
• 7.1-I-5 Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure
funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects.
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 118
June 2021
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.9 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to biological resources which
may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible,
mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed potential impacts related to special-status species under
Impact 2.9-1a, and impacts to designated critical habitat for federally protected species
under Impact 2.9-1b. The forecasted development and transportation projects under the
Plan would result in habitat loss and degradation. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures 2.9-1(a) and 2.9-1(b), reproduced below, would mitigate this potential impact to
less-than-significant levels. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority
to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures
2.9-1(a,b), the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and
unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies
having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-
referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impacts related to biological
resources would be less than significant. In the case of the proposed project, the mitigation
measures set forth in the Plan Bay Area EIR are not applicable to the proposed project as
they pertain specifically to sites that include sensitive habitats. The project site has no
such sensitive habitat.
It should also be noted that buildout of the entire Plan Bay Area planning area encompasses
a wide range of habitat types, whereas, implementation of the proposed project would result
in a substantially smaller disturbance area as compared to the Plan Bay Area planning area.
As discussed in further detail below, development of the proposed project individually could
result in an adverse impact to birds protected under the MBTA; however, migratory birds
are not considered candidate, sensitive, or special status species, which are the subject of
this question. In addition, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures II-1 and II-
2 would reduce potential project impacts to migratory birds to a less-than-significant level.
b,c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed potential impacts related to riparian habitat, federally
protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities under Impact 2.9-2. As
discussed therein, projected development and implementation of transportation projects
have the potential to affect jurisdictional waters and other sensitive habitats. The Plan Bay
Area EIR included Mitigation Measure 2.9-2 to protect wetlands to the maximum extent
feasible. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain
mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.9-2, the Plan Bay
Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the
program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority
require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area
EIR mitigation, the project’s impacts related to wetlands would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the project site is an infill location and
does not contain any riparian habitat, protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural
communities. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact
related to riparian habitat, other sensitive natural community, or on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.).
d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the movement of migratory
fish or wildlife species, use as a migratory wildlife corridor, or the use of native wildlife
nursery sites under Impact 2.9-3. Projected development and implementation of
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 119
June 2021
transportation projects under the Plan Bay Area have the potential to affect wildlife
corridors and nursery sites. The Plan Bay Area EIR proposed Mitigation Measure 2.9-3,
which would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Because the MTC/ABAG
does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan
Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.9-3, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact
would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the
extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt
and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impacts
related to wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the project site is an infill location and
would not provide a wildlife corridor, would not be used by migratory wildlife species, and
would not be considered suitable habitat for a wildlife nursery. As such, implementation of
the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to interference
with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of wildlife nursery sites.
e,f. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed impacts related to conflicting with adopted local
conservation policies, such as tree protection ordinances, or resource protection and
conservation plans, such as an HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or
other local, regional, or State HCP, under Impact 2.9-4. As noted therein, the Plan Bay
Area EIR concluded that the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
The biological mitigation measures set forth in the Plan Bay Area EIR pertain specifically to sites
that include sensitive habitats. The project site has no such sensitive habitat and, thus, the
mitigation measures would not apply.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The project site consists of existing commercial structures, and is covered with impervious
surfaces. The site is primarily surrounded by existing development. Existing vegetation on
or in the vicinity of the project site consists of non-native trees, typical commercial
landscaping, and areas of grass lawn. The existing vegetation provides little habitat for
wildlife species. In addition, pursuant to General Plan EIR Figure 4.13-3, Ecologically
Sensitive Lands, the project site does not contain any ecologically sensitive habitat,
including Wetland, Habitat Conservation Area, or Marine Aquatic Habitat. However, the
existing trees could be considered potential habitat for special-status birds.
Birds protected under the MBTA are known to use shrubbery, trees, and sometimes urban
buildings to nest. As noted above, under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and
young is illegal. While unlikely, if a bird protected under the MBTA is nesting within onsite
trees, then removal of the trees would cause an adverse impact.
Based on the above, development of the project could have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore,
the project could have a potentially significant impact to protected species. However,
implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures II-1 and II-2, which would be
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 120
June 2021
required by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project, would reduce the
potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
b,c. The project site consists of existing commercial structures and paved areas. As discussed
above, the existing vegetation on or in the vicinity of the project site predominantly consists
of non-native trees and commercial landscaping. Water features are not present on the
project site. It should be noted that Colma Creek is located adjacent to the project site,
along the southern border. However, the project would not disturb Colma Creek.
Accordingly, riparian habitat, wetlands, or any other sensitive natural community do not
exist on the project site. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would have
no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including wetlands.
d. Because the site is built out with urban uses and surrounded by existing development, the
project site would not provide a wildlife corridor, would not be used by migratory wildlife
species, and would not be considered suitable habitat for a wildlife nursery. The project
site does not contain streams or other waterways that could be used by migratory fish or
as a wildlife corridor for other wildlife species. In addition, pursuant to Figure 2.9-9, of the
Plan Bay Area EIR, the project site is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area,
defined as lands important to wildlife movement. While Colma Creek is located adjacent
to the project site, Colma Creek is a poor habitat feature and does not provide connectivity
to any upstream habitat. Even if Colma Creek were to act as a movement corridor for
some species, Colma Creek is separated from the project site by a concrete wall, and
implementation of the proposed project would not affect the habitat. As such, the project
would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
e. To assess the health and structural condition of the trees within the project site, a Tree
Inventory Report was prepared for the proposed project by HortScience and Bartlett
Consulting.27 The tree assessment took place October 31, 2018, and 61 trees were
identified on-site. All tree species identified on-site commonly occur in the San Francisco
Bay Area, were likely planted, and were not considered natural volunteers or indigenous
trees. Only two trees were identified as healthy and potentially suitable for preservation,
but these trees are located within the area proposed for development. The applicant
intends to preserve, if feasible, a grove of six trees located in the northwest corner of Site
1. However, these trees are not identified as healthy and it may not be possible to preserve
them. Accordingly, this SCEA assumes that up to 61 trees may be removed.
The City of South San Francisco protects certain tree species, such as oaks, 10 inches
and greater in trunk diameter, most tree species 15 inches and greater in diameter, and
certain tree species, such as blackwood acacia, 24 inches and greater in trunk diameter
(see Municipal Code Section 13.30, Tree Preservation). Based on the City’s definition for
protected trees, 26 of the trees included in the report are considered Protected, and would
require approval of a permit prior to removal. The Tree Inventory Report evaluated the
suitability of each tree for preservation, and concluded that only two of the 61 on-site trees
are considered to have good health, structural stability, and potential for longevity at the
project site. Therefore, the remaining 59 trees have fair or poor health, and are not
recommended for preservation.
27 HortScience and Bartlett Consulting. Tree Inventory Report, Colma Creek, South San Francisco, CA. December
18, 2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 121
June 2021
Based on the above, 28 of the 61 trees anticipated for removal as part of the project would
require a permit and appropriate replacement according to Municipal Code Section
13.30.080. As a means of replacement, the Landscaping Plan (see Figure 6) includes new
trees along the site perimeter as part of the proposed project. Considering the project
would be required to comply with all City regulations set forth in the Municipal Code, the
project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Thus, the project would be
consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
f. The project site is not located within an area that is subject to an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact
related to a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact
(see discussion ‘a’) to a less-than-significant level.
II-1 The project applicant shall ensure that a qualified biologist conduct a pre-
construction survey for nesting birds within a 250-foot buffer around the project site
boundaries, if feasible, not more than 14 days prior to site disturbance during the
breeding season (February 1st to August 31st). If site disturbance commences
outside the breeding season, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds is not
required. The project applicant shall submit survey results to the City’s Planning
Division prior to initiation of any ground disturbance. If active nests of migratory birds
are not detected within approximately 250 feet of the project site, further mitigation
is not required.
II-2 If nesting raptors or other migratory birds are detected on or adjacent to the site
during the survey, the project applicant shall be responsible for establishing an
appropriate construction-free buffer around all active nests. Actual size of buffer
would be determined by the project biologist, and would depend on species,
topography, and type of activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. Typical
buffers are 25 feet for non-raptors and up to 250 feet for raptors. The project buffer
would be monitored periodically by the project biologist to ensure compliance. The
project applicant shall ensure that these buffer distances and monitoring
requirements are met. After the nesting is completed, as determined by the biologist,
the buffer would no longer be required. The project applicant shall also ensure that
these buffers remain in place for the duration of the breeding season or until a
qualified biologist has confirmed that all chicks have fledged and are independent of
their parents.
Findings
The project site has been previously developed for commercial land uses and is primarily covered
by structures and pavement. Because the project site is predominantly urbanized, the site has
low habitat value, and low potential for the presence of special-status species. However, certain
birds protected by the MBTA may nest within onsite trees, and a potentially significant impact
could occur. Project-specific Mitigation Measures II-1 and II-2 require preconstruction surveys for
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 122
June 2021
nesting birds and the establishment of appropriate buffers, which would reduce impacts to a less-
than-significant level. As such, the proposed project would not result in additional significant
environmental effects related to Biological Resources.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 123
June 2021
III. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco has a Historic Preservation Program, which tasks the Historic
Preservation Commission with identifying the City’s most important historic sites and protecting
them accordingly. The Historic Preservation Commission currently has 50 designated historic
sites, each identified for its historical or cultural significance.28
The project site is located within an urban area and, therefore, existing development surrounds
the project site, including roadways and commercial development, with the exception of Colma
Creek along the southern site boundary. Four commercial buildings currently exist on Site 1, and
two commercial buildings exist on Site 2. The existing buildings make up a total of approximately
93,775 sf, and the remainder of the site area consists of minor landscaping and paved parking
lots. According to the Phase I ESA, the site was first developed in 1956 with three large structures.
The site was redeveloped with the existing buildings between 1982 and 1993. Due to the
developed nature of the site, the project site has already been highly disturbed.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to the disturbance of cultural resources in Chapter
4.14.
a,b. Impacts 4.14-a and 4.14-b include a discussion regarding how future development
throughout the City may adversely affect historic resources or disrupt an archeological site
or property with cultural significance. As noted therein, the Historic Preservation
Commission protects historical structures throughout the City, and the City’s Municipal Code
further protects historic buildings from damage or demolition. Due to the City’s location,
subsurface prehistoric and archeological resources may be present. However, the General
Plan EIR notes that archeological surveys and records reviews would allow for the
appropriate handling and/or avoidance of such resources. The following policies are
included in the General Plan to address potential impacts related to historical and
archeological resources:
• 7.5-G-1: Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic,
educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San
Francisco's identity and quality of life.
• 7.5-G-2: Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and
support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources.
• 7.5-I-4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the City by
requiring a records review for any development proposed areas of known resources.
28 City of South San Francisco. Historic Preservation. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-
community-development/planning-division/historic-preservation. Accessed July 10, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 124
June 2021
• 7.5-I-5: In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation
plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that
archaeological resources are uncovered.
Overall, the General Plan EIR concluded that, with implementation of the policies included
in the General Plan, buildout of the General Plan would have a less-than-significant effect
on historic and archeological resources.
c. The General Plan EIR does not explicitly discuss impacts related to the disturbance of
human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.11 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to cultural, historical, and
archaeological resources that may result from implementation of the Plan. Where necessary and
feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a,b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource or unique archeological resource, as
defined in Section 15064.5 (Impact 2.11-1 and 2.11-2) and determined that, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.11-1 and 2.11-2, the impact would be less than
significant.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the disturbance of human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, under Impact 2.11-4. The
Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that compliance with California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 would
ensure that any potential impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Because the on-site buildings are not greater than 45 years in age, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measure 2.11-1 would not apply. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2 is
applicable to the proposed project.
2.11-2 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following
measures where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific
considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• Before construction activities, project sponsors shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to conduct a record search at the appropriate Information
Center to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed
and whether resources were identified. When recommended by the
Information Center, project sponsors shall retain a qualified archaeologist
to conduct archaeological surveys before construction activities. Project
sponsors shall follow recommendations identified in the survey, which may
include activities such as subsurface testing, designing and implementing
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 125
June 2021
a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, construction monitoring by
a qualified archaeologist, avoidance of sites, or preservation in place.
• In the event that evidence of any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface
archaeological features or deposits are discovered during construction-
related earth-moving activities (e.g., ceramic shard, trash scatters, lithic
scatters), all ground-disturbing activity in the area of the discovery shall be
halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.
If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the appropriate Native
American group shall be notified. If the archaeologist determines that the
find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural
resources, construction may proceed. If the archaeologist determines that
further information is needed to evaluate significance, a data recovery plan
shall be prepared. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified
archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an
historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist
shall work with the project applicant to avoid disturbance to the resources,
and if complete avoidance is not feasible in light of project design,
economics, logistics, and other factors, follow accepted professional
standards in recording any find including submittal of the standard DPR
Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) and location information to the
appropriate California Historical Resources Information System office for
the project area.
• Project sponsors shall comply with existing local regulations and policies
that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect
archaeological resources.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a-c. According to the South San Francisco Historic Preservation Program’s map of Historic
Resources, identified historic resources do not exist on or within the vicinity of the project
site.29 In addition, Figure 4.14-1, Designated Historic Resources, of the General Plan EIR
does not identify any protected historic resources on the project site.30 Furthermore, the
existing on-site structures were built between the late 1980s and 1993, and, therefore, are
not considered historic buildings.31 Because historic buildings or other known historic
resources do not exist on-site, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 would not
apply to the proposed project. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2
provides standardized protocol for the accidental discovery of cultural resources, and
would be applicable to the proposed project.
Considering that the project site has previously been heavily disturbed through
development of the existing office structures, the potential for encountering any significant
cultural, historic, or archaeological resources or human remains during the on-site
improvements associated with the project is relatively low. Although low, the potential does
exist for previously unknown or unidentified cultural resources or human remains to be
encountered below the surface that could be inadvertently damaged or lost during grading
and construction of the project. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2,
29 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Program. South San Francisco Historic Sites. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1800. Accessed July 10, 2020.
30 South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999.
31 ENGEO Incorporated. South San Francisco Business Park Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. October 23,
2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 126
June 2021
listed above, would reduce impacts related to the discovery of unknown archeological
resources to a less-than-significant level.
The project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 and 7052, which addresses appropriate handling of human remains, and California
Public Resources Code Section 5097, which addresses appropriate protection of
archeological and historical sites. The project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area
EIR, and compliance with such regulations would ensure that a less-than-significant
impact to cultural resources would occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
Considering that the project site has been previously developed, the likelihood of discovering
previously unknown historic or archeological resources is low. In addition, the on-site buildings to
be demolished are not considered historical resources, and project would be required to comply
with all applicable provisions of California law, including California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097. Plan Bay Area
EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 would not apply to the proposed project because the project would
not affect known historic resources and the on-site buildings are not over 45 years old. However,
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2, listed above, would reduce impacts related to the
discovery of unknown archeological resources to a less-than-significant level. As such, Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2 is hereby incorporated as a requirement of the proposed
project. Implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measure would ensure that the project
would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Cultural Resources.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 127
June 2021
IV. ENERGY.
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Setting
The project site is currently developed with four commercial buildings and associated parking
areas. Electricity and natural gas are currently provided to the project site by PG&E. South San
Francisco also has partnered with Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), a Community Choice
Aggregation, which allows the purchase of electricity from renewable sources through PG&E
infrastructure.32 Therefore, the project applicant would have convenient access to renewably
sourced electricity to meet the demands of the proposed project.
A description of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and the Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, with which the proposed project would be required to comply, are provided
below. This analysis is also based on Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code
(CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the CBSC, which became effective with the rest of the
CBSC on January 1, 2020. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety,
and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of
building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and
encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning,
design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or
structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited
to, the following measures:
• Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of Electric Vehicle
charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures;
• Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture
water use rates;
• Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), or a local ordinance, whichever
is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use;
• Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills;
• Mandatory periodic inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner,
mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 sf to ensure that all are
working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies; and
• Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet,
vinyl flooring, and particle board.
32 City of South San Francisco. Community Choice Energy. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/city-
manager/sustainability/community-choice-energy#:~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20has%20joined
,instead%20of%20going%20through%20PG%26E.. Accessed June 10, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 128
June 2021
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon
energy-efficiency measures from the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, went into effect
starting January 1, 2020. The 2019 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements
beyond the current 2016 standards. Residential buildings built in compliance with the 2019
standards are anticipated to use approximately seven percent less energy compared to the 2016
standards, primarily due to lighting upgrades.33
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR does not include a discussion regarding energy efficiency or renewable
energy goals.
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Impacts related to energy, including quantification of energy demand from regional development,
are discussed in Chapter 2.4 of the Plan Bay Area EIR. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation
measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed whether implementation of the plan would result in
wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy in Impact 2.4-1. As noted therein, per capita
energy consumption associated with the proposed Plan would be lower per capita when
compared to buildout without adoption of the Plan due to the increased energy efficiency
of the multi-family housing encouraged as part of the Plan. In addition, because the Plan
Bay Area would result in denser land development and a net reduction in personal vehicle
use, the project would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy and a less-than-
significant impact would occur.
b. As discussed in Plan Bay Area EIR Impact 2.4-2, future land use projects under the Plan
Bay Area would be more dense and more energy efficient, and would be required to
comply with the most up-to-date edition of the Title 24 Standards. In addition, PG&E’s
compliance with the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investor-
owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase
procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement
by 2020 and to 60 percent by 2030, would ensure that electricity demand by developments
under the Plan Bay Area would be met by increasingly more renewable sources. As such,
the Plan Bay Area EIR concludes that impacts related to renewable energy use and
energy efficiency would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and
consumption related to the use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction
33 California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ. November 2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 129
June 2021
worker vehicle trips, hauling and material delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road
construction equipment. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas
appliances or equipment. Pursuant to Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2, the
use of portable diesel generators would be prohibited during construction.
The on-site commercial buildings currently consume energy during normal operations.
Demolition of the existing buildings would remove the energy demand associated with
operation of such buildings. Therefore, energy demand during construction would be
somewhat off-set through reductions in energy demand due to the demolition of existing
structures.
Even during the most intense period of construction, due to the different types of
construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, building construction), only portions
of each individual site would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction
equipment occurring at different locations on the project site, rather than a single location.
In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the
CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in
California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB,
restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions
by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. The In-
Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would subsequently help to improve fuel
efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. In addition, compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.2-2, which limits idling time to two minutes, would further reduce
energy consumption during construction. Technological innovations and more stringent
standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or
other design changes, which could help to reduce demand on oil and emissions
associated with construction.
The CARB prepared the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping
Plan),34 which builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to
continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. Appendix
B of the 2017 Scoping Plan includes examples of local actions (municipal code changes,
zoning changes, policy directions, and mitigation measures) that would support the State’s
climate goals. The examples provided include, but are not limited to, enforcing idling time
restrictions for construction vehicles, utilizing existing grid power for electric energy rather
than operating temporary gasoline/diesel-powered generators, and increasing use of
electric and renewable fuel-powered construction equipment. The In-Use Off Road
regulation described in the Air Quality section of this SCEA IS, with which the proposed
project must comply, would be consistent with the intention of the 2017 Scoping Plan and
the recommended actions included in Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use during construction of the
proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or
require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. The proposed project
would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation
and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand.
34 California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 130
June 2021
Following implementation of the proposed project, PG&E would provide electricity and
natural gas to the project site. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed
project would be typical of residential uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior
building lighting, operation of stoves, kitchen and cleaning appliances, security systems,
and more. Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance,
would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy
use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle
trips generated by future residents.
The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update
of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most
recent CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the
proposed structures would consume energy efficiently. Required compliance with the
CBSC would ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project
would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. As noted above, the existing on-site
buildings consume energy. The proposed project would be built under more stringent
efficiency standards compared to the standards in place at the time of construction of the
existing buildings. Therefore, while the project may result in a net increase in energy
demand, energy would be consumed more efficiently due to modern regulations.
In addition, future residents would have access to electricity generated from renewable
sources through PCE. Even if customers choose to opt out of PCE, the electricity supplied
by PG&E would comply with the State’s RPS. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed
during project operations would originate from renewable sources. Furthermore, the
project applicant has indicated that the project would incorporate design features such as
energy efficient light fixtures and Energy-Star rated appliances. The rooftop would include
the infrastructure necessary to facilitate future solar panel installation.
As a qualifying Transit Priority Project, the project site is located within close proximity to
existing public transit infrastructure, and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations would be
included in the project. Bicycle parking would be included on-site, which would encourage
patrons to use alternative transportation. Through project consistency with the Plan Bay
Area the project would reduce VMT and thereby reduce energy demand associated with
transportation.
Based on the above, compliance with the State’s latest Energy Efficiency Standards would
ensure that the proposed project would implement all necessary energy efficiency
regulations. Additionally, the inclusion of infrastructure for future installation of solar panels
and other sustainable features by the proposed project would further reduce any impacts
associated with energy consumption.
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result
in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with
or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project
would be consistent with, and included within, the energy demands quantified and
analyzed in the Plan Bay Area EIR. Thus, the project would be consistent with the Plan
Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 131
June 2021
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
Construction and operation of the proposed project would increase energy demand at the project
site. However, construction would take place over a limited, finite amount of time, and fuel
efficiency of construction equipment would be regulated through State requirements. Operation
of the project would not consume excessive energy as energy efficiency fixtures would be
implemented to the maximum extent feasible, and transportation energy demand from future
residents would be significantly reduced due to the close proximity of the site to the Caltrain
Station. In addition, the project would include electric vehicle charging stations and infrastructure
to allow for subsequent installation of solar panels, in compliance with local renewable energy
plans. As such, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental impacts
related to Energy.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 132
June 2021
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause 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 based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Environmental Setting
The following background setting information focuses on the existing topography of the region
and project site, the underlying bedrock, and site seismicity, as well as the general conditions and
expansiveness of the on-site soils.
While most of South San Francisco is comprised of flat or gently sloping areas, steep hillsides
surround the northern and western portions of the City. Seismic and other structural hazards are
related to two geologic conditions found in South San Francisco:
• Soils in the flat lowland areas, comprised largely of Bay Mud overlain with fill in the eastern
portions of the City, have high shrink-swell potential, high water table, and low strength.
These soil conditions amplify earthquake waves and ground shaking, and are subject to
liquefaction.
• Steeply-sloping hillside areas have soils with shrink-swell hazards, high erosion hazard,
and low strength. Some of these soils have severe limitations for bearing dwellings without
basements and for local roads. In addition, substantial portions of the south flank of San
Bruno Mountain are classified as a high landslide risk area.
The San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire City,
creating potential for ground rupture and high levels of ground shaking. Areas subject to extremely
high or very high levels of wave amplification include the hills west of Callan Boulevard, adjacent
to the San Andreas Fault zone, and the alluvial lowlands surrounding Colma Creek, between
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 133
June 2021
Orange and Linden Avenues. Most of the City would experience an intensity level of VII
(Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San
Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude.35 The project site is situated in the
Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges have experienced a
complex geological history characterized by Late Tertiary folding and faulting that has resulted in
a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys.
The following information was procured primarily from the site-specific Geotechnical Report
prepared by ENGEO, Inc (see Appendix D).36
The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, as designated pursuant
to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known faults cross the site. The nearest
known active fault surface trace is the San Andreas Fault, which is mapped approximately 2.2
miles east of the site. Topographic maps in the late 1930s and early 1940s illustrate the site was
situated within a former tidal marsh. Topographic maps from the late 1940s indicate fill was placed
throughout the region and site area as illustrated by higher elevations in these areas compared
to previous topographic maps. Based on topographic maps before and after fill placement, it
appears site elevations were increased by approximately 5 to 15 feet. These fill deposits consist
of lightly consolidated clay and silt as well as loose sand and rock fragments, organics, and man-
made debris which have been placed over tidal flats to raise elevations. The tidal flat deposits
tend to consist of organic material, clay, clayey silt, silt and sandy silt. Although the whole site
seems to reside on fill underlain by tidal marsh, it is also situated near the periphery of the historic
marshland and is located downslope of an outcrop of Franciscan Formation sandstone and shale
(KJs), which is characterized by interbedded sandstone and shale units that can be hard when
intact and soft when weathered or sheared.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.11 of the General Plan EIR evaluated the potential effects related to geology, soils, and
seismicity within the City.
a.i-a.iv. Impacts related to seismic groundshaking, seismic-related hazards, liquefaction, and
ground failure are discussed under General Plan EIR Impact 4.11-a. Surface rupture of
an Alquist-Priolo Fault is discussed in Impact 4.11-b. If an earthquake occurs in the region,
certain susceptible areas of South San Francisco could experience structural damage.
However, the following General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to a less-
than-significant level.
• 8.1-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic
hazards in South San Francisco.
• 8.1-I-1 Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools, and
other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the
community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2.
• 8.1-I-2 Require geotechnical and engineering geology reports as part of the
development review process prior to approval of any development on sites within
seismically sensitive lands, as indicated in Figure 8-5. (Figure 4.11-6 of the
[General Plan] DEIR)
35 South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999.
36 ENGEO, Incorporated. Hanover – Colma Creek 100 Produce Avenue: Preliminary Geotechnical Report. October
23, 2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 134
June 2021
• 8.1-I-3 Explore programs that would build incentives to retrofit unreinforced
masonry buildings.
c. General Plan EIR Impact 4.11-c discusses impacts related to expansive soils and
settlement. Expansive soils can be found in several hillside locations throughout the City.
However, implementation of all applicable General Plan policies, as listed above, would
reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
b,d,e,f. Other impacts related to geological and soil resources were not discussed in the General
Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Impacts related to geology and soils are discussed in Chapter 2.7 of the Plan Bay Area EIR.
Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a.i. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to fault rupture under Impact
2.7-1. The Alquist-Priolo Act regulates where development and road projects can occur in
relation to faults by requiring detailed fault identification studies and requiring minimum
setback requirements. Local agencies and Caltrans also have requirements to address
impacts related to fault rupture. Therefore, there are existing federal, state, and local
regulations and oversight in place that would effectively reduce the inherent hazard
associated with fault rupture, and the impact would be less than significant.
a.ii. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to ground shaking under
Impact 2.7-2. While the Plan would result in increased population in a seismically active
area, regulatory requirements already exist that establish specific development standards
in such areas, and the impact would be less than significant.
a.iii. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact regarding seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction under Impact 2.7-3. The impacts of ground failure, including
liquefaction, on development of the land uses or transportation projects under the Plan
Bay Area would be addressed through site-specific geotechnical studies required by local
jurisdictions in accordance with standard industry practices and State-provided guidance.
In addition, development would conform to the current seismic design provisions of the
International Building Code and CBSC in order to reduce potential losses from ground
failure as a result of an earthquake. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
a.iv. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to landslides under Impact
2.7-4. Landslide hazards are dependent on site-specific conditions, including the
steepness of slopes, and other conditions such as, in the case of seismically-induced
landslides, the distance and magnitude of the seismic event. State and local standards
have been developed to address this condition and, therefore, the impact would be less
than significant.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil under Impact 2.7-5. Construction associated with land use and
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 135
June 2021
transportation projects would include ground disturbances that could expose underlying
soils to the effects of erosion. However, existing regulatory requirements specify
mandatory actions that must occur during project development that would address this
potential impact and, therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
c,d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to locating future projects on
a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable, or contains
expansive properties under Impact 2.7-6. Hazards associated with unstable soils or
geologic units are dependent on site- specific conditions, as well as the specific nature of
the individual project proposed. With adherence to grading permit and building code
requirements, including seismic design criteria as required by the CBSC, Caltrans, Special
Publication 117A, and local building code requirements, all improvements and
development associated with both the land use development and transportation projects
would be designed to minimize potential risks related to unstable soils and geologic units.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e. Impacts related to the suitability of soils to support septic systems is not included in the
Plan Bay Area EIR.
f. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to destruction of unique
paleontological or geologic features under Impact 2.11-3, and determined that individual
development projects have the potential to adversely affect such resources. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.11-3, reproduced below, would reduce the
potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-3 would apply to the proposed project, and has
already been implemented:
2.11-3 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures where
feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• Before construction activities, project sponsors shall conduct a record
search using an appropriate database, such as the UC Berkeley Museum
of Paleontology to determine whether the project area has been previously
surveyed and whether resources were identified.
• If record searches indicate that the project is located in an area likely to
contain important paleontological, and/or geological resources, such as
sedimentary rocks which have yielded significant terrestrial and other
fossils, project sponsors shall retain a qualified paleontologist to train all
construction personnel involved with earthmoving activities about the
possibility of encountering fossils. The appearance and types of fossils
likely to be seen during construction will be described. Construction
personnel will be trained about the proper notification procedures should
fossils be encountered.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities,
the construction crew will be directed to immediately cease work in the
vicinity of the find and notify the implementing agencies and/or project
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 136
June 2021
sponsors. The project sponsor will retain a qualified paleontologist for
identification and salvage of fossils so that construction delays can be
minimized. The paleontologist will be responsible for implementing a
recovery plan which could include the following:
o in the event of discovery, salvage of unearthed fossil remains,
typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen but
possibly also plaster-jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens, or
more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits;
o recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for
the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of
lithologies of fossil-bearing strata, measurement and description of
the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic documentation
of the geologic setting;
o laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil
remains to a point of curation, generally involving removal of
enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using
glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens;
o cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically
involving scientific identification of specimens, inventory of
specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into
an inventory database;
o transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an appropriate
repository, with consent of property owner;
o preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory
methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils
recovered, and the significance of the curated collection; and
o project sponsors shall comply with existing local regulations and
policies that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above
measures that protect paleontological or geologic resources.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a.i-ii. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone, as
designated pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and known fault
lines do not cross the project site. The nearest known active fault to the project site is the
San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 2.2 miles east of the site. Therefore,
fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site.37
The project site is located within a seismically sensitive area, as designated in Figure 4.11-
6 of the General Plan EIR. As required by General Plan Policy 8.1-I-2, development on
lands within seismically sensitive areas require geotechnical and engineering geology
reports as part of the development review process. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report
prepared for the proposed project partially complies with this policy. Preparation of a site-
specific design-level geotechnical exploration, as required by project-specific Mitigation
Measure V-1, would ensure that the project complies with General Plan Policy 8.1-I-2.
Based on the proximity of the project site to local and regional faulting, as well as historical
seismic activity, the project site is considered subject to relatively high ground shaking risk
37 ENGEO, Incorporated. Hanover – Colma Creek 100 Produce Avenue: Preliminary Geotechnical Report. October
23, 2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 137
June 2021
and related effects. However, the CBSC provides minimum standards to ensure that the
proposed structures would be designed using sound engineering practices and
appropriate engineering standards for the seismic area in which the project site is located.
Projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor
earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage,
but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse,
but with some structural, as well as non-structural, damage. Although conformance with
the CBSC does not guarantee that substantial structural damage would not occur in the
event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, conformance with the CBSC can reasonably
be assumed to ensure that the proposed structures would be survivable, allowing
occupants to safely evacuate in the event of a major earthquake.
Compliance with the CBSC would ensure that seismic-related effects would not cause
adverse impacts. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR
and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to seismic rupture of a known
earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking.
a.iii. Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, especially as a result of
cyclic loadings induced by earthquakes or ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to
liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded fine sands. The liquefaction
analysis prepared as part of the Geotechnical Report identified sand susceptible to
liquefaction at various depths throughout the exploration locations. As noted in the
Geotechnical Report, further evaluation is required through soil borings and laboratory
testing to determine the liquefaction potential, and design accordingly. Thus, the proposed
project could directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death associated with seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, and a potentially significant impact could occur. However, implementation of
project-specific Mitigation Measure V-1, which would be required by the City as a condition
of approval for the proposed project, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
a.iv. Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of
landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. The project site does not
contain, and is not located adjacent to, any such slopes. Thus, the proposed project would
not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Thus, the project would be consistent with the
Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. Issues related to erosion are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
SCEA IS. As noted therein, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil. Thus, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR
and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. As noted above, the project site is relatively level and is not located on or near any slopes.
Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to risk from landslide. However, the
Geotechnical Report notes that the project site may be filled with “Young Bay Mud”, which
is prone to consolidation settlement. The report concludes that major considerations in
foundation design at this site are bearing capacity, settlement due to compressible clay,
and settlement due to potentially liquefiable material.
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits
towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically,
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 138
June 2021
lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the
bottom of the exposed slope. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength,
duration and intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Given that
the project site does not contain any free faces, the potential for lateral spreading to pose
a risk to the proposed development is negligible.
Based on the above, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact
related to being 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. However, implementation of project-
specific Mitigation Measure V-1, which would be required by the City as a condition of
approval for the proposed project, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
d. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content.
Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted.
Expansive soils can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade,
pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundation. Building damage due to
volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by a variety of solutions.
If structures are underlain by expansive soils, foundation systems must be capable of
tolerating or resisting any potentially damaging soil movements, and building foundation
areas must be properly drained. Exposed soils must be kept moist prior to placement of
concrete for foundation construction.
The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project did not identify expansive soils
on-site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-
than-significant impact would occur related to proposed structures being located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code, thereby creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
e. The proposed project would connect to existing City sewer services. Thus, the
construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems
is not included as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soil
to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
would occur.
f. Known unique geologic or paleontological resources have not been identified on-site. In
addition, the project site has already been developed and, therefore, has been subject to
substantial ground disturbance. Pursuant to Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-
3, a records search request was submitted to the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology
(UCMP) on January 22, 2021.38 According to UCMP, fossils have not been previously
reported from the direct project area. The following three Pleistocene deposits have been
reported a few kilometers west of the project site: UCMP localities 164A, 164B, and V6319.
In addition, several invertebrate localities that produced mollusks and echinoids from the
Pliocene to Pleistocene Merced Formation have been recorded in former creek beds near
V6319. UCMP staff noted that the aforementioned sites are older and were all collected
when the area was less developed. The project area has since been built up, developed,
and covered in fill.
38 Patricia Holroyd, Ph.D., Senior Museum Scientist at UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. Personal
Communication [email] with Briette Shea, Associate/Air Quality Technician at Raney Planning & Management, Inc.
March 18, 2021.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 139
June 2021
Based on the records search, it is reasonably anticipated that ground-disturbing activity,
such as grading, trenching, or excavating associated with implementation of the proposed
project, would not have the potential to disturb or destroy any paleontological resources.
Thus, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-
significant impact would occur related to the direct or indirect destruction of a unique
paleontological resource.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impacts (see
discussions ‘a.iii’ and ‘c’) to a less-than-significant level.
V-1 Prior to approval of construction permits, the applicant shall retain a qualified
geologist to prepare a site-specific design-level geotechnical exploration as part of
the design process. The exploration shall include laboratory soil testing to provide
additional data for preparation of specific recommendations regarding the following
items:
• Grading, existing fill removal, and fill compaction;
• Consolidation settlement;
• Liquefaction settlement;
• Ground lurching;
• Lateral spreading;
• Site Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis (if required);
• Foundation design;
• Retaining walls;
• Site drainage and landscaping irrigation; and
• Pavement recommendations.
The project applicant shall submit results of the design-level geotechnical
exploration to the City’s Planning Division and/or City Engineer for review and
approval.
Findings
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and the proposed
structures would be designed to withstand seismic ground shaking via compliance with the 2019
CBSC. The on-site soils are not identified to be expansive, but may be liquefiable and subject to
settlement. Project-specific Mitigation Measure V-1 requires further evaluation of the site by
preparation of a design-level geotechnical exploration, and implementation of all
recommendations therein. In addition, previously unknown unique paleontological resources are
unlikely to be discovered during ground disturbing activities, based upon the records of the UCMP.
With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the proposed project would not
result in any additional environmental effects to Geology and Soils.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 140
June 2021
VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Environmental Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are components of earth’s atmosphere which affect the global climate
by trapping and releasing thermal energy. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate
change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the
industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the
cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to
every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions
are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable
incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact.
Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG
emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily
associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants,
such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or
vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the
generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile
source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual
metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).
The BAAQMD developed a threshold of significance for project-level GHG emissions in 2009.
The District’s approach to developing the threshold was to identify a threshold level of GHG
emissions for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing
California legislation. At the time that the thresholds were developed, the foremost legislation
regarding GHG emissions was AB 32, which established an emissions reduction goal of reducing
statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.39 The GHG emissions threshold of significance
recommended by BAAQMD to determine compliance with AB 32 is 1,100 MTCO2e/yr. If a project
generates GHG emissions above the BAAQMD’s adopted threshold level, the project is
considered to generate significant GHG emissions and conflict with AB 32.
The foregoing threshold is intended for use in assessing operational GHG emissions only.
Construction of a proposed project would result in GHG emissions over a short-period of time in
comparison to the operational lifetime of the project. To capture the construction-related GHG
emissions due to buildout of the proposed project, such emissions are amortized over the duration
of the construction period and added to the operational GHG emissions. Given that construction-
related GHG emissions would not occur concurrently with operational emissions and would cease
upon completion of construction activities, and that BAAQMD thresholds are based on annual
emissions (i.e., emissions from a single year, rather than combined emissions from multiple
39 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update: Proposed
Thresholds of Significance. December 7, 2009.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 141
June 2021
years), combining the two emissions sources represents a conservative estimate of annual project
GHG emissions.
Since the adoption of BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance, the State legislature has
passed SB 32, which builds upon AB 32 and establishes a statewide GHG reduction target of 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Considering the legislative progress that has occurred
regarding statewide reduction goals since the adoption of BAAQMD’s standards, the emissions
thresholds presented above would determine whether a proposed project would be in compliance
with the 2020 emissions reductions goals of AB 32, but would not necessarily demonstrate
whether a project would be in compliance with SB 32. In accordance with the changing legislative
environment, the BAAQMD has begun the process of updating their CEQA Guidelines; however,
updated GHG thresholds of significance have not yet been adopted. In the absence of adopted
BAAQMD thresholds for SB 32, GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project have been
assessed in relation to other existing statewide, regional, and Citywide plans related to climate
change, including the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).
The MTC focuses on achieving GHG emissions reductions by encouraging a region wide
transportation strategy, which would allow for a reduction of dependence on single passenger
vehicles and an increase in alternative transit options. To accomplish the aforementioned
transportation improvements, the MTC identified areas of the region where alternative transit
options currently exist, and areas needing improvement. Areas with frequently recurring transit
service and multiple alternative transportation options were identified in the MTC as being TPAs.
The MTC concluded that further densification and growth in TPAs would lead to a greater proportion
of the regional population living and working in areas that would provide easy access to alternative
means of transportation, which would lead to a greater use of alternative means of transportation
and a reduction in passenger vehicle dependence. The project site has been identified as being in
a TPA and, thus, further compact and mixed-use development of the site is generally encouraged
by the MTC as a means to achieve regional GHG emissions reductions.
The project qualifies as a Transit Priority Project (TPP) and, thus, pursuant to PRC 21159.28, this
environmental document is not required to reference, describe or discuss impacts from car and light
duty truck trips on climate change or regional transportation network. Discussions of impacts from
car and light duty truck trips on climate change is not required of TPPs because such projects are
consistent with regional transportation plans, the implementation of which would contribute to
regional reductions in GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis of project effects on GHG
emissions does not include a discussion of the project’s GHG emissions from mobile sources;
however, the discussion will analyze the project’s GHG emissions resulting from construction and
other operational activities.
South San Francisco CAP
As a means of achieving the statewide GHG emissions reduction goals, the City of South San
Francisco has prepared a CAP, which was adopted on February 13, 2014. Consistent with the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the CAP presents a target reduction of 15 percent below
baseline 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2020. The targets are consistent with statewide goals. In
addition, the CAP includes a number of reduction measures intended to be implemented by the City
in order to accomplish the reduction goals, and quantifies emissions reductions from the identified
reduction measures in the years 2020 and 2035. The emissions reduction strategies developed by
the City follows the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the BAAQMD. Because the
information included in the CAP fulfills the requirements of Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines,
the CAP may be used in CEQA analyses of impacts related to GHG emissions from proposed
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 142
June 2021
projects. It should be noted that a quantitative threshold for GHG emissions for individual
development projects has not been established by the City or set forth in the CAP.
Current GHG Emissions from Existing Buildings
The existing on-site commercial buildings generate GHG emissions during normal operations.
The operational GHG emissions of the existing conditions have been modeling using CalEEMod,
and the results are presented in Table 9 below.
Table 9
Existing Conditions - Operational GHG Emissions
Source Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Area 0.01
Energy 228.22
Mobile 579.75
Solid Waste 37.73
Water 31.15
Total Operational Emissions 876.85
Source: CalEEMod, July 2020 (Appendix A).
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR does not include an analysis of impacts related to GHG emissions. However,
the following policies, which relate to GHG emissions, are included in the City’s General Plan:
• 7.3-G-2 Mitigate the South San Francisco community’s impact on climate change by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with state guidance.
• 7.3-G-5 Promote clean and alternative fuel combustion in mobile equipment and vehicles.
• 7.3-I-6 Periodically update the inventory of community-wide GHG emissions and evaluate
appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets, consistent with current State objectives,
statewide guidance, and regulations.
• 7.3-I-7 Adopt and implement the City of South San Francisco’s CAP, which will identify a
GHG emissions reduction target and measures and actions to achieve the reduction target.
• 7.3-I-8 Evaluate and regularly report to City Council, or its designee, on the implementation
status of the CAP and update the CAP as necessary should the City find that adopted
strategies are not achieving anticipated reductions, or to otherwise incorporate new
opportunities.
• 7.3-I-9 Promote land uses that facilitate alternative transit use, including high-density
housing, mixed uses, and affordable housing served by alternative transit infrastructure.
• 7.3-I-12 Adopt guidelines, standards, and flexible regulations that promote on-site
renewable energy systems while strengthening South San Francisco’s economic
competitiveness.
• 7.3-I-13 Encourage efficient, clean energy and fuel use through collaborative programs,
award programs, and incentives, while removing barriers to the expansion of alternative fuel
facilities and infrastructure.
• 7.3-I-14 Ensure that design guidelines and standards support operation of alternative fuel
facilities, vehicles, and equipment.
• 7.3-I-15 Demonstrate effective operations in municipal facilities that reduce GHG emissions.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 143
June 2021
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.5 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluates potential impacts to global climate change that
may result from GHG emissions related to the implementation of the proposed Plan.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the net increase in direct and indirect GHG emissions in
2040 when compared to existing conditions under Impact 2.5-2. Because implementation
of the Plan Bay Area would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions in 2040 when
compared to existing conditions, the impact would be less than significant.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to conflicting with the goal
of SB 32 under Impact 2.5-3. While the Plan Bay Area would support progress towards
attaining the 2030 and 2050 targets, even more aggressive GHG reduction actions, such
as local implementation of GHG reduction plans, would be needed to conform to such
long-term targets. Therefore, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the Plan may conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce emissions of GHGs.
Implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3, requires measures
consistent with the State 2017 Scoping Plan, including directing counties and cities to
adopt qualified GHG reduction plans (e.g., CAPs). Mitigation, via CAPs for individual
jurisdictions, or other programs, including retrofitting existing buildings, installing
renewable energy facilities that replace reliance on fossil-fuel power in the region,
alterations in the vehicle fleet (toward more non-fossil fuel-powered vehicles) and other
measures would be required to meet the goals needed to attain the State’s 2030 targets.
However, there is no assurance that this level of mitigation would be accomplished
throughout the Bay Area. Moreover, MTC/ABAG cannot require local implementing
agencies to adopt Mitigation Measure 2.5-3, and it is ultimately the responsibility of a lead
agency to determine and adopt mitigation. According to the Plan Bay Area EIR, even with
full implementation of the mitigation measure, forecasted emissions would not be reduced
to target levels under SB 32. Thus, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact
remains significant and unavoidable.
It should be noted that the significant and unavoidable determination above refers to buildout
of the entire Plan Bay Area planning area. As discussed in further detail below,
implementation of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions that are below the
applicable thresholds of significance, and the project would be consistent with the City’s
CAP and the 2017 Scoping Plan. As such, the proposed project’s incremental contribution
to the significant and unavoidable impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3, which requires adoption of a local Climate Action
Plan (CAP) or other qualified GHG reduction plan, is focused on lead agency efforts and is not
applicable to individual development projects. The City has already adopted a CAP, with which
the proposed project would comply. In addition, as a TPP, implementation of the proposed project
would reduce single-passenger vehicle trips and, thereby, reduce the mobile-sourced GHG
emissions associated with land use development. For the preceding reasons, Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.5-3 would not apply to the proposed project.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 144
June 2021
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a, b. Because the proposed project is a TPP, a discussion of impacts from light vehicle traffic on
global climate change is not required, per Public Resources Code Section 21159.28(a).
However, the remaining sources of GHG emissions must still be addressed.
Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically
expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change. Neither the City
nor BAAQMD has an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG
emissions. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s construction GHG emissions, as well as
operational emissions, have been estimated using CalEEMod, under the same
assumptions discussed in Section I, Air Quality, of this SCEA IS (see Appendix A). PG&E’s
compliance with the State’s RPS was assumed in the modeling. As noted in the previous
section of this SCEA IS, customers would be able to purchase renewably-sourced
electricity through PCE. However, because future residents have the option to opt out of
PCE services, the modeling conservatively assumed that PG&E would be the electricity
provider for the project. In reality, emissions from electricity are expected to be lower than
the levels presented herein.
The emissions estimates prepared for the proposed project determined that unmitigated
project construction would result in total GHG emissions of 1,749.14 MTCO2e over the
course of four years. The most emissions-intensive year of construction is expected to
occur in 2022, with construction resulting in 935.11 MTCO2e/yr. In order to provide a
conservative estimate of emissions, the proposed project’s construction GHG emissions
have been amortized over the anticipated construction period of the project. As shown in
Table 10, total amortized unmitigated construction emissions would equate to 437.29
MTCO2e/yr over the assumed four-year construction period of the project.
Table 10
Unmitigated Annual Project Construction GHG Emissions
Year Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
2021 35.57
2022 935.11
2023 554.90
2024 223.57
Total Construction Emissions 1,749.14
Amortized Annual Construction Emissions 437.29
Source: CalEEMod, July 2020 (Appendix A).
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in total annual GHG
emissions as shown in Table 11, including the amortized construction emissions.
Additionally, the GHG emissions associated with the current operations of the existing
commercial buildings are also presented in the table. In the absence of the proposed
project, the emissions would continue unabated. Considering that existing GHG emissions
resulting from the current operations at the project site would continue in the absence of
the proposed project, the analysis of operational GHG emissions presented in this SCEA
IS focuses on the net change in emissions.
Based on the total annual GHG emissions shown in the table, including amortized annual
construction emissions, the proposed project would result in net new annual GHG
emissions of 914.8 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would result
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 145
June 2021
in emissions below the applicable 1,100 MTCO2e/yr threshold of significance, and the
proposed project would not be expected to have a significant impact related to GHG
emissions.
Table 11
Unmitigated Annual Operational GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Emission Source
Existing
Conditions Annual
GHG Emissions
Proposed Project
GHG Emissions
Net New
Annual GHG
Emissions
Area 0.01 25.26 25.25
Energy 228.22 582.14 353.92
Stationary - 0.18 0.18
Solid Waste 37.73 111.04 73.31
Water 31.15 55.99 24.84
Amortized Construction
Emissions - 437.29 437.29
Total Annual GHG
Emissions 297.1 1,211.9 914.8
BAAQMD Threshold - - 1,100
Exceeds Threshold? - - NO
Source: CalEEMod, July 2020 (Appendix A).
Climate Action Plan
The City’s CAP is implemented at the project level through preparation of the Development
Review Checklist, which has been prepared for the proposed project and included as
Appendix C to this SCEA IS. As noted therein, the project would comply with the majority of
measures included in the CAP, including, but not limited to, the incorporation of:
• Bicycle facilities;
• High-density housing;
• Payment of traffic impact fees;
• Reduced parking;
• LID practices;
• EV charging spaces.
As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s CAP and, therefore, would
not conflict with the applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs. It should be noted that the CAP focuses on achieving the goals set
forth by AB 32.
Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan
In the absence of adopted GHG emissions thresholds to assess compliance with SB 32,
the BAAQMD has directed jurisdictions to qualitatively assess a project’s compliance with
the recommended mitigation measures within the California’s 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) as an alternative means of assessing a project’s
potential impacts related to GHG emissions.40
40 Flores, Areana. Environmental Planner, Planning and Climate Protection. Personal communication [phone] with
Jacob Byrne, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. September 17,
2019.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 146
June 2021
Appendix B to the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan provides examples of potentially feasible
mitigation measures that could be considered to assess a project’s compliance with the
State’s 2030 GHG emissions reductions goals. Thus, general compliance with the majority
of the Local Actions within the 2017 Scoping Plan could be considered to demonstrate the
project’s compliance with SB 32. The project’s consistency with the applicable Local
Actions within the 2017 Scoping Plan is assessed in Table 12 below.
Table 12
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Construction
Enforce idling time restrictions for
construction vehicles.
Pursuant to the applicable Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measure 2.2-2, the idling time shall be limited to no more
than two minutes. Construction fleets and all equipment
operated as part of on-site construction activities would
be subject to such idling restrictions. As such the
proposed project would be required to comply with this
measure.
Require construction vehicles to
operate with the highest tier engines
commercially available.
The project applicant has not committed to using
construction equipment that complies with the highest
tier engines commercially available. However, it should
be noted that construction emissions would fall below
the BAAQMD’s thresholds. As a result, project
compliance with this measure is uncertain.
Divert and recycle construction and
demolition waste, and use locally-
sourced building materials with a high
recycled material content to the
greatest extent feasible.
The CALGreen Code requires the diversion of
construction and demolition waste, and the proposed
project would be required to comply with the
requirements within the most up-to-date CALGreen
Code. Thus, the project would be considered to comply
with the suggested measure.
Minimize tree removal, and mitigate
indirect GHG emissions increases
that occur due to vegetation removal,
loss of sequestration, and soil
disturbance.
The Tree Inventory Report concluded that only two of
the 61 on-site trees are considered to have good health,
structural stability, and potential for longevity at the
project site, but these two trees are located within the
proposed development area. Additionally, the remaining
59 trees had fair or poor health, and were not
recommended for preservation. While on-site trees
would be removed as part of the proposed project, the
project would include tree replacement as part of the
Landscaping Plan. In addition, the proposed project
would be required to comply with the City’s tree
replacement standards. As such, the project would be
considered to generally comply with the suggested
measure.
Utilize existing grid power for electric
energy rather than operating
temporary gasoline/diesel powered
generators.
Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure
2.2-2, the contractor would use existing grid electricity to
the extent feasible. However, the possibility exists that
temporary natural gas or propane generators will be
used for electricity in instances where grid electricity is
not accessible. Overall, the project would be considered
to generally comply with the suggested measure.
Increase use of electric and
renewable fuel powered construction
equipment and require renewable
The project applicant has not committed to the use of
alternatively fueled construction equipment.
Furthermore, the commercial availability of renewable
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 147
June 2021
Table 12
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
diesel fuel where commercially
available.
diesel in the project area is currently unknown.
Consequently, compliance with this suggested measure
is uncertain at this time.
Require diesel equipment fleets to be
lower emitting than any current
emission standard.
The project applicant has not committed to reducing
emissions from the construction fleet beyond any
current emissions standards. Consequently, compliance
with this suggested measure is uncertain at this time.
Operations
Comply with lead agency’s standards
for mitigating transportation impacts
under SB 743.
As noted in Section XII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS,
the project would result in a less-than-significant impact
related to VMT. As a residential development within a
TPA, a key objective of this project is to reduce VMT.
Thus, project would be considered to comply with the
suggested measure.
Require on-site EV charging
capabilities for parking spaces
serving the project to meet
jurisdiction-wide EV proliferation
goals.
Per the 2019 CALGreen Code, the project is required to
provide the infrastructure necessary to facilitate
installation of EV charging systems in six percent of total
on-site parking spaces. Compliance with the 2019
CALGreen Code would ensure that the proposed project
provides sufficient EV charging infrastructure to comply
with this suggested measure.
Dedicate on-site parking for shared
vehicles.
The project applicant has not committed to providing
dedicated parking for shared vehicles. Therefore,
compliance with the suggested measure is uncertain at
this time. However, implementation of Transportation
Demand Program prepared for the proposed project
would otherwise incentivize carpool/vanpool programs
and provide access to shared vehicles. Thus, the
proposed project generally complies with the intent of
the suggested measure.
Provide adequate, safe, convenient,
and secure on-site bicycle parking
and storage in multi-family residential
projects and in non-residential
projects.
The proposed project would include 24 short-term and a
total of 240 long-term bicycle parking spaces in an
enclosed space for residents. Accordingly, the project
would comply with the suggested measure.
Provide on- and off-site safety
improvements for bike, pedestrian,
and transit connections, and/or
implement relevant improvements
identified in an applicable bicycle
and/or pedestrian master plan.
As part of the project, a new sidewalk would be provided
along the Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue
frontages, and a new sidewalk along the Produce
Avenue and San Mateo Avenue frontages. In addition,
the proposed project would directly connect to the
Downtown Caltrain station through existing bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure. As a Condition of Approval,
the City has required the applicant to construct off-site
improvements, including installation of pedestrian-scale
lighting along the Airport Boulevard undercrossing, and
the removal of slip lanes and related improvements at
the intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo
Avenue/Produce Avenue. Consequently, the project
would comply with the suggested measure. Additional
discussion of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities is
provided in Section XII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 148
June 2021
Table 12
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Require on-site renewable energy
generation.
Consistent with the 2019 CBSC requirements for
residential buildings over three stories, the rooftops of
the proposed buildings would be designed to include
infrastructure for the future provision of solar panels.
Upon the incorporation of such solar panels, the project
would comply with this suggested measure.
Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces in
new development, and require
replacement of wood-burning
fireplaces for renovations over a
certain size development.
The proposed project would not include wood-burning
fireplaces. Thus, the proposed project would comply
with the suggested measure.
Require cool roofs and “cool parking”
that promotes cool surface treatment
for new parking facilities as well as
existing surface lots undergoing
resurfacing.
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards contain
requirements for the thermal emittance, three-year aged
reflectance, and Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of
roofing materials used in new construction and re-
roofing projects. Such standards, with which the project
would be required to comply, would help to reduce
heating and cooling costs associated with the proposed
project. In addition, all parking would be internal within
the first two stories of the building and, therefore,
surface lot heat effects would not occur. Therefore, the
proposed project would generally comply with the
suggested measure.
Require solar-ready roofs. The rooftop of the proposed buildings would be
designed to include infrastructure for the provision of
solar panels. Consequently, the project would comply
with the suggested measure.
Require organic collection in new
developments.
California state legislature AB 1826 requires commercial
and multi-family customers to subscribe to organics
recycling. Therefore, the proposed multi-family
residential buildings would be required to include
organic collection, and organic composting is mandatory
for all businesses and institutions with four or more cubic
yards of garbage service. In addition, the City’s garbage
provider offers food scraps collection services for multi-
family residential buildings. As such, future residents
may have access to the organic collection service. Thus,
the proposed project would include organic collection
and the project would comply with the suggested
measure.
Require low-water landscaping in
new developments (see CALGreen
Divisions 4.3 and 5.3 and the Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
[MWELO], which is referenced in
CALGreen). Require water efficient
landscape maintenance to conserve
water and reduce landscape waste.
Project landscaping has been designed to integrate low
and moderate water use plants to the maximum extent
feasible. Landscaping within the project site would be
required to comply with the CALGreen Code and all
water efficiency measures therein, including the
MWELO or any similar regulations adopted by the City
of South San Francisco. Accordingly, the proposed
project would comply with this measure.
Achieve Zero Net Energy
performance building standards prior
to dates required by the Energy
Code.
The project applicant has not committed to achieving
Zero Net Energy. Thus, compliance with the suggested
measure is uncertain at this time. It should be noted that
the CBSC does not require new high-rise multi-family
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 149
June 2021
Table 12
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
residential developments to achieve Zero Net Energy at
this time.
Encourage new construction,
including municipal building
construction, to achieve third-party
green building certifications, such as
the GreenPoint Rated program,
LEED rating system, or Living
Building Challenge.
The project applicant has committed that the project will
be certified as GreenPoint Rated by Build It Green.
Accordingly, the proposed project would comply with
this measure.
Expand urban forestry and green
infrastructure in new land
development.
The project would include landscaping throughout the
site, which would result in an increase in the total
number of trees on-site, compared to the existing site
conditions. Therefore, the project would expand urban
forestry and comply with the suggested measure.
Require preferential parking spaces
for park and ride to incentivize
carpooling, vanpooling, commuter
bus, electric vehicles, and rail service
use.
The proposed project would include EV charging
spaces, as required by the 2019 CALGreen Code. In
addition, the proposed TDM includes measures that
would incentivize alternative travel and reduce VMT,
including, but not limited to, the following: bike repair
standards/kiosks, carpool and vanpool incentives,
subsidized transit passes, carshare programs, etc.
Thus, the project would comply with the suggested
measure.
Require the installation of energy
conserving appliances such as on-
demand tank-less water heaters and
whole-house fans.
The proposed project would be required to comply with
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, a
component of the CBSC, which includes standards
related to installation of energy-efficient appliances and
building features such as water heaters and ventilation
systems. Thus, the project would generally comply with
the suggested measure.
Require each residential and
commercial building equip buildings
[sic] with energy efficient AC units
and heating systems with
programmable thermostats/timers.
The proposed project would be required to comply with
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, a
component of the CBSC, which includes standards
related to energy-efficient heating and cooling systems.
Thus, the project would generally comply with the
suggested measure.
Require large-scale residential
developments and commercial
buildings to report energy use, and
set specific targets for per-capita
energy use.
The project applicant has not committed to reporting
energy use or setting specific energy use targets.
Accordingly, compliance with the suggested measure is
uncertain at this time.
Require each residential and
commercial building to utilize low flow
water fixtures such as low flow toilets
and faucets (see CALGreen Divisions
4.3 and 5.3 as well as Appendices
A4.3 and A5.3).
The proposed project would be required to comply with
the residential water efficiency regulations within the
CALGreen Code. In addition, the project would include
design features, such as inclusion of low-flow water
fixtures, to reduce indoor water use by 15 percent. Thus,
the proposed project would comply with the suggested
measure.
Require the use of energy-efficient
lighting for all street, parking, and
area lighting.
All proposed exterior lighting would be LED type,
consistent with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. Thus, the proposed project would comply
with the suggested measure.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 150
June 2021
Table 12
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Require the landscaping design for
parking lots to utilize tree cover and
compost/mulch.
Parking spaces are provided on the first two stories of
the proposed building, and therefore would already be
shaded. Nonetheless, the proposed landscaping plans
include tree planting throughout the project area. Thus,
the proposed project would generally comply with the
suggested measure.
Incorporate water retention in the
design of parking lots and
landscaping, including using
compost/mulch.
The proposed project would include installation of
pervious surfaces, landscaped areas, and bio-retention
areas, and would result in an overall net decrease in
impervious surfaces (see Section VIII, Hydrology and
Water Quality, for more information). As such, the
proposed project would be consistent with the general
intent of this suggested measure.
Require the development project to
propose an off-site mitigation project
which should generate carbon credits
equivalent to the anticipated GHG
emission reductions. This would be
implemented via an approved
protocol for carbon credits from
California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA), the
California Air Resources Board, or
other similar entities determined
acceptable by the local air district.
The project may alternatively
purchase carbon credits from the
CAPCOA GHG Reduction Exchange
Program, American Carbon Registry
(ACR), Climate Action Reserve
(CAR) or other similar carbon credit
registry determined to be acceptable
by the local air district.
The suggested mitigation measures included in the
2017 Scoping Plan are not considered to be
requirements for local projects under CEQA, but instead
represent options for projects to demonstrate
compliance with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The inclusion
of GHG off-set mitigation projects or the purchase of
carbon credits is typically dependent on a project’s
exceedance of the previously identified quantitative
GHG thresholds. However, neither BAAQMD nor the
City’s CAP have identified quantitative thresholds that
could be used to determine that the project’s anticipated
emissions would be such that an off-site mitigation
project or purchase of GHG reduction credits would be
required in order to comply with SB 32.
Considering that the project has been shown to be
generally consistent with the foregoing measures, the
City, in its discretion as lead agency, has chosen not to
require the project to implement an off-site mitigation
project or purchase GHG reduction credits.
Source: California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Scoping Plan [Appendix B]. Accessible at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed September 2019.
As demonstrated in the table above, the project complies with the majority of the Local
Action items in the 2017 Scoping Plan. The Local Action items are examples of potentially
feasible measures, and complete compliance with all of the measures is not necessary for
a project to be considered to comply with SB 32.
The primary goal of the 2017 Scoping Plan is to reduce GHG emissions, and the primary
contributor of operational GHG emissions from residential projects is from VMT. Through
project consistency with the Plan Bay Area, the project would reduce VMT and mobile-
sourced emissions, and be consistent with the overall intent of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The
proposed project is in a TPA, and would encourage the use of alternate modes of
transportation by increasing the number of residents near existing and proposed means of
public transit. Additionally, the project’s location in an urban employment area would allow
employees that work in the surrounding commercial areas to walk or bike to work,
eliminating the need for single passenger vehicle commutes, and thus reducing mobile GHG
emissions. The proposed project would also offer a reduced number of vehicle parking
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 151
June 2021
spaces (relative to the City’s Municipal Code), while exceeding the number of bicycle
parking spaces, to further discourage single passenger vehicle use while encouraging
alternative modes of transit.
Additionally, because the Project is within a TPA, the Project would also be consistent with
the ABAG’s GHG reductions mandated by SB 375. Considering that the project’s
operational and construction emissions would be below BAAQMD’s quantitative thresholds
and the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area, the City’s CAP, and the majority
of applicable Local Actions of the 2017 Scoping Plan, the project would not interfere with or
impede the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, and impacts would be considered less
than significant.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
The Plan Bay Area was designed to help achieve regional GHG emissions reductions through
the careful planning of transportation and land use projects. Project consistency with the Plan Bay
Area was demonstrated through addressing the criteria in PRC 21155(b), included in the Project
Description of this SCEA IS. As such, implementation of the project would work towards the goal
of reducing regional GHG emissions. In addition, project modeling indicates that construction and
operations of the proposed project would fall below the applicable thresholds of significance. Plan
Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3 is aimed at government entities, and does not apply to
the proposed project. Because the project would not exceed any thresholds of significance, and
would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area, the City’s CAP, and the 2017 Scoping Plan, the
proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to GHG
Emissions.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 152
June 2021
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Setting
The project site currently consists of six existing commercial buildings, which were constructed
between 1982 and 1993, and associated paved area. The dates of construction for the buildings
postdate the ban employed by the federal government regarding the use of lead-based paint and
asbestos-containing materials.
Existing development completely surrounds the site. According to a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) performed by ENGEO, the project area is not included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and the site is not known
or expected to contain any existing contaminated soils. The San Francisco International Airport,
which is the nearest airport to the project site, is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the
site. The nearest school relative to the project site is Spruce Elementary School, located
approximately 0.65-mile northwest of the site.
Based on a search of the Standard Environmental Record source databases, several facilities on
the leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), aboveground storage tanks (AST), and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) databases were identified. Nearby listings include, but
are not limited to, the following:
• Budget Rent-A-Car LUST at 177 South Airport Boulevard;
• Airport Boulevard Service Station LUST at 190 Airport Boulevard;
• Diadoti Construction LUST at 1461 San Mateo Avenue;
• Union Carbide Corporation LUST at 7 South Linden Avenue; and
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 153
June 2021
• Shell Oil LUST at 140 Produce Avenue.
However, based on the distances to the identified sites and regional topography, the Phase I ESA
concluded that the identified sites would not pose an environmental risk to the project site.
In 2002, the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (Title 17, Section 93105, of the California Code of
Regulations) went into effect, which requires each air pollution control and air quality management
district to implement and enforce the requirements of Section 93105 and propose their own
asbestos ATCM as provided in Health and Safety Code section 39666(d).41 As a result, BAAQMD
regulates construction activities that produce dust that could contain NOA.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.7 of the General Plan EIR includes a discussion of hazards, hazardous materials, and
emergency response.
a,b,d. Impact 4.7-b discusses impacts related to accidental exposure to hazardous materials
during operations. Implementation of the following General Plan policies would ensure that
impacts related to hazardous materials would remain less than significant.
• 7.2-I-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's web-
site, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe
alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for
home and garden use.
• 8.3-G-1 Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and
recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional
landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
• 8.3-G-2 Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and
transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply
with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of
hazardous substances as established by federal (EPA), state (DTSC, RWQCB,
Cal OSHA, Cal EPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San
Francisco) regulations.
• 8.3-I-1 Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and
complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
• 8.3-I-2 Continue to comply with the Zoning Ordinance's hazardous waste
regulations.
• 8.3-I-3 Prepare a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for the sites
included in the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites.
• 8.3-I-4 Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous
materials.
c,e. Impacts related to emitting hazardous emissions or hazardous materials within 0.25-mile
from a school or related to safety hazards or exposure to excessive noise for people
working or residing within two miles from an airport were not discussed within the General
Plan EIR.
41 California Air Resources Board. 2002-07-29 Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations. June 3, 2015. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm. Accessed July
2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 154
June 2021
f. Impact 4.7-c analyzes how potential hazards could affect emergency responses or
emergency evacuation routes. The General Plan EIR notes that development within the City
could reduce the availability and effectiveness of evacuation routes and emergency vehicle
access routes. However, with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, listed
under item “a,b.d” above, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would be less than
significant.
g. Impacts associated with wildland fires are discussed under Impact 8.4-b of the General
Plan EIR. Under General Plan Policy 8.4-I-1, the City shall institute a comprehensive fire
hazard management program to reduce fire hazards to the maximum extent feasible.
Therefore, with implementation of relevant policies set forth in the General Plan, impacts
related to wildfire would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.13 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where
necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the routine transport or
disposal of hazardous materials under Impact 2.13-1. Because of the existing federal,
state, and local regulations and oversight in place that would effectively reduce the
inherent hazard associated with these activities, the impact would be less than
significant.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the accidental release of
hazardous materials into the environment under Impact 2.13-2. Existing regulations
effectively reduce the potential for individual projects to create a hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the
impact would be less than significant.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to emissions or handling of
hazardous materials within 0.25-mile of a school under Impact 2.13-3. All projects would
be required to comply with federal and state regulations that are designed to reduce the
potential for the release of large quantities of hazardous materials and wastes into the
environment to an acceptable level, and in particular to protect schools. Existing federal,
state, and local regulations and oversight would be sufficient to ensure that hazardous
materials stored, used, transported, and disposed of under the proposed Plan would not
pose a substantial hazard to the public or the environment, including children at schools,
under normal conditions. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the proposed project
being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 under Impact 2.13-4. The potential for encountering
hazardous materials or wastes would be dependent on site-specific conditions. Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.13-4 requires preparation of a Phase I ESA if a project site
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 155
June 2021
is located on or near a hazardous materials or hazardous waste site, and compliance with
its recommendations. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to
impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures
2.13-4, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and
unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies
having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-
referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impacts related to hazard materials
or wastes would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project is not located on a
site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5, and implementation of the proposed project would
result in no impact associated with such.
e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the safety hazard for
people residing or working within two miles of an airport under Impacts 2.13-5 and 2.13-
6. Due to existing regulations, impacts were determined to be less than significant.
f. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to interfering with
emergency response and evacuation plans under Impact 2.13-7. Emergency and
evacuation plans are periodically updated to accommodate growth and would continue to
be updated for growth and changes in projected development associated with the Plan.
Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
g. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to wildland fires under
Impact 2.13-8. Compliance with existing state and local regulations would effectively
reduce the inherent hazard associated with development of areas with a high wildfire
hazard to an acceptable level. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.13-4 would apply to the proposed project, and has
already been implemented.
2.13-4 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• If the project is located on or near a hazardous materials and/or waste site
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, or has the potential for
residual hazardous materials and/or waste as a result of location and/or
prior uses, the project sponsor shall prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance
with the American Society for Testing and Materials’ E-1527-05 standard.
For work requiring any demolition or renovation, the Phase I ESA shall
make recommendations for any hazardous building materials survey work
that shall be done. All recommendations included in a Phase I ESA
prepared for a site shall be implemented. If a Phase I ESA indicates the
presence or likely presence of contamination, the implementing agency
shall require a Phase II ESA, and recommendations of the Phase II ESA
shall be fully implemented.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 156
June 2021
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. Residential land uses are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal,
or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Maintenance and operation
of the proposed project may use common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and
herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however,
such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to
the regulations governing use of such products and the amount anticipated to be used on
the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health
or the environment. Therefore, the project the project would be consistent with the Plan
Bay Area EIR and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-
significant impact would occur.
b. The following discussion provides an analysis of potential hazards and hazardous
materials associated with upset or accident conditions related to the proposed
construction activities and existing on-site conditions.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of
heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as
concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g.,
petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment)
would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction.
However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and
Safety Codes and any applicable local ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and
transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. As noted in Section I, Air Quality, of this
SCEA IS, the project site may contain NOA and, therefore, ground disturbing activities
could release asbestos dust. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable
regulations under the Asbestos ACTM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations. Project-specific Mitigation Measure I-2 requires implementation of an
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan during construction of the proposed project, and would
reduce impacts related to exposure to naturally-occurring asbestos-containing dust to a
less-than-significant level.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project
by ENGEO, Inc. for the purpose of identifying potential recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) associated with the project site (see Appendix E).42 The Phase I ESA
included a reconnaissance of the project site and a review of local, state, tribal, and federal
environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire
insurance maps and physical setting sources. Sources reviewed as part of the Phase I
ESA indicate that the project site has been subject to prior development, beginning with
three large structures visible in aerial photographs circa 1956. By 1993, the site was
redeveloped with the commercial buildings that exist today. Considering the existing on-
site buildings were constructed between 1982 and 1993, the buildings would not have
used lead-based paint, as lead-based paint was banned in 1978.43 Similarly, asbestos
was phased out in building materials by 1980 and, thus, the existing buildings are not
anticipated to contain asbestos. Therefore, the proposed demolition of the buildings would
42 ENGEO, Inc. South San Francisco Business Park, South San Francisco, California, Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment. October 23, 2018.
43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protect Your Family from Exposures to Lead. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#:~:text=If%20your%20home%20was%20built
,common%20causes%20of%20lead%20poisoning.. Accessed July 14, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 157
June 2021
not expose construction workers to lead or asbestos from previous use of lead-based
paints or asbestos-containing building materials.
A site reconnaissance of the project site was conducted on September 26, 2018. The site
was examined for hazardous materials storage, superficial staining or discoloration,
debris, stressed vegetation, or other conditions that may be indicative of potential sources
of soil or groundwater contamination. The site reconnaissance indicated that underground
storage tanks (USTs) and/or ASTs were not identified on-site, and a Vapor Encroachment
Screening indicated that there are not any petroleum hydrocarbon sources within 0.1-mile
of the site, and one volatile organic compound source within 0.3-mile of the site. One of
the six existing on-site buildings is a laboratory, and includes storage of several chemicals,
gas tanks, and hazardous waste. However, all associated hazardous materials were
appropriately stored, and would not pose a risk to the project site. Overall, the Phase I
ESA did not identify any RECs, nor any existing on-site or off-site hazards that could be
exacerbated by development of the project.
Based on the above, operations of the proposed project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment. Construction activities could result in the production of asbestos-containing
dust from NOA, but this potential impact would be mitigated by project-specific Mitigation
Measure I-2. Implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure I-2 would be required
by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project. Thus, the project would be
consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The nearest school relative to the project site is Spruce Elementary School, located
approximately 0.65-mile northwest of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would have
no impact related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
d. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List, the project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.44
Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment, and no impact would occur.
e. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport, located
approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. According to the Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (Land
Use Plan), the project site falls within the boundaries for Airport Influence Areas A and B.
Area B is a subset of, and thus within, Area A. For projects located within Area B, the
Airport Land Use Commission must review and approve development proposals, and a
real estate disclosure form must be prepared for future residents. However, the project
site is located outside of the Outer Boundary of Safety Zones, and outside of the Outer
Boundary of Terminal Instrument Procedure (TERPS) Approach and One Engine
44 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES.
Accessed July 14, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 158
June 2021
Inoperative (OEI) Departure Surfaces. As shown in Exhibit IV-6 of the Land Use Plan, the
project site is located outside of the 65 dB contour.45
Because the project site is not located within a Safety Zone or a TERPS Approach and
OEI Departure Surface, no impact would occur related to safety hazards. In addition,
because the project site would be subject to less than 65 dB from airport operations the
project would not subject future residents and employees to excessive noise. Therefore,
the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant
impact would occur related to a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area.
f. During operation, the proposed project would provide adequate access for emergency
vehicles and would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by
emergency response teams. During construction of the proposed project, all construction
equipment would be staged on-site so as to prevent obstruction of local and regional travel
routes in the City that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. The
project would not substantially alter the existing circulation system in the surrounding area.
As a result, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-
significant impact would occur with respect to impairing the implementation of or
physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.
g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XV, Wildfire, of this SCEA IS.
As noted therein, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone.46 In addition, the project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of South
San Francisco, is surrounded by existing development, and bounded by Colma Creek to
the south. The developed nature of the area surrounding the project site precludes the
spread of wildfire to the site. Thus, the potential for wildland fires to reach the project site
would be limited. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Thus, the project
would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant impact would
occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
Hazards related to development projects are typically related to the use of hazardous materials,
the location of projects on a site that was previously exposed to hazardous materials, or the
interference with adopted emergency response plans, among other factors. The Phase I ESA,
which fulfilled the requirements of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.13-4, concluded that
known hazardous materials have not been used on the site, and nearby sites known to contain
hazardous materials are not anticipated to impact the project site. Residential land uses do not
typically involve the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials, and therefore would not
create a risk associated with hazardous materials. Additionally, the project site is already
45 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the
Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November 2012.
46 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in LRA. November 24, 2008.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 159
June 2021
developed and surrounded by existing urban infrastructure. The project would not alter or interfere
with the City’s existing circulation system and, thus, the project would not interfere with circulation
in a way that could impact existing emergency response or evacuation plans. As such, the project
would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 160
June 2021
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. 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; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Environmental Setting
The project site currently contains six commercial buildings and associated paved areas. The site
is located adjacent to Colma Creek, and approximately one mile from the western edge of the
San Francisco Bay. The site does not contain creeks, wetlands or other hydrologic features. The
project site is located in a highly developed area of South San Francisco. Currently, the project
site is almost entirely comprised of impervious surfaces and, as a result, stormwater is directed
to on-site drains and ultimately to the City’s stormwater system.
Stormwater
The City of South San Francisco owns and maintains the storm drain system adjacent to the site.
Site 1 currently drains to the existing storm drain system in San Mateo Avenue, which flows to a
24-inch outfall (Outfall #3). A portion of Site 2 also drains to the 24-inch outfall. Other portions of
Site 2 drain to three separate 15-inch outfalls to Colma Creek (Outfalls #1, #2, and #4).
Flooding
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM) that delineate flood hazard zones for communities. According to FIRM Number
06081C0043F, the project site is designated primarily as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone
X), with the edges of the project site designated as an 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 161
June 2021
(Zone X).47 Developments within Zone X are not required to elevate or flood proof, as risk of
flooding is considered low.
Groundwater
The project site is located within the boundaries of the South Westside Basin. Groundwater
recharge is highest in the northwestern portions of the basin, corresponding to areas of sandy
soils, and in areas with significant unpaved, irrigated land, such as golf courses and cemeteries.
Recharge is lowest along the margins of San Francisco Bay, corresponding to areas with Bay
Muds, and along the steep slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Groundwater used for water supply in
the South Westside Basin is generally good quality and delivered water meets all state and federal
regulations.48
The South San Francisco District has seven wells with a total design capacity of 1,365 gallons
per minute (gpm). If operated full-time, these wells could produce 1.97 mgd (2,207 acre-feet per
year [AFY]). This production capacity represents approximately 20 to 25 percent of the annual
demand in the district, with the remaining demand being met by purchased surface water, as
discussed further in Section XIV, Utilities and Service Systems, of this SCEA IS. As such,
groundwater is not a significant source of water for the City of South San Francisco.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.12 of the General Plan EIR evaluates the potential effects of the General Plan related
to hydrology and water quality. Chapter 4.6 of the General Plan EIR includes a discussion of water
facilities, and Chapter 4.7 of the General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to flooding.
a. The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to the quality of local water resources.
Urban pollution, such as landscaping chemicals, cleaning solvents, litter, and others, can
create a negative impact on water quality. However, the following General Plan policies
address the issue, and would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
• 7.2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards
to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater
resources.
• 7.2-G-2 Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their
contamination.
• 7.2-G-3 Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances
within the city.
• 7.2-I-1 Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the
implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP [the San
Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program] for the protection of
surface water and groundwater quality.
• 7.2-I-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City
and in STOPPP as needed.
• 7.2-I-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's web-
site, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe
alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for
home and garden use.
47 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F. April 5, 2019.
48 Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July 2012.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 162
June 2021
b,e. Impact 4.6-b of the General Plan EIR discusses ways the development under the General
Plan would degrade or deplete groundwater quality, and Impact 4.6-c discusses impacts
related to groundwater recharge. As noted therein, groundwater is not a significant source
of water in the City of South San Francisco, and compliance with applicable General Plan
policies, listed below, would minimize potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
• 7.2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards
to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater
resources.
• 7.2-I-1 Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the
implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the
protection of surface water and groundwater quality.
ci. The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to erosion and sedimentation under
Impact 4.12-b. Construction of new facilities under the General Plan could result in
increased erosion and sedimentation, with subsequent impacts to water quality and/or
storm drain capacity during construction. However, implementation of all applicable
General Plan policies, specifically policies 7.2-I-1 and 7.2-I-2, listed above, would reduce
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
cii-d. The General Plan EIR Impact 4.7-a includes an analysis of future development and
increased impervious surface areas on runoff and flooding potential. South San Francisco
is a highly developed urban area with a substantial amount of impervious surfaces. Further
development under the General Plan would create additional impervious surfaces, which
would alter drainage patterns and increase the risk of flooding. However, compliance with
applicable policies within the General Plan would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
• 7.2-I-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City
and in STOPPP as needed.
• 8.2-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco.
• 8.2-I-1 Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
in the implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (STOPPP).
• 8.2-I-2 Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed
development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood
hazards.
• 8.2-I-3 Encourage FEMA to update the 100-year floodplain boundaries to reflect
the new limits of flood hazard constraint to be determined by the completion of the
Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.8 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to hydrology and water quality
associated with future land development under the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary
and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce such impacts.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 163
June 2021
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to water quality standards
or waste or stormwater discharge requirements under Impact 2.8-1. Land use and
transportation projects under the Plan Bay Area would likely result in a net increase of
impervious surfaces. However, because existing regulations are in place to specify
mandatory actions that must occur during project development, which would adequately
address potential for construction or operation of projects to result in violation of water
quality standards, or waste or stormwater discharge requirements, a less-than-
significant impact would occur.
b,e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to interference with or
reduction rates of groundwater recharge due to the increased impervious surfaces under
Impact 2.8-2. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that, with compliance with existing
regulations related to groundwater recharge, the impact would be less than significant.
ci. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to erosion and sedimentation
by altering existing drainage patterns under Impact 2.8-3. Implementation of the Plan
could result in new development that could change existing drainage patterns. However,
existing regulations would effectively reduce the alterations of existing drainage patterns
to an acceptable level, and the impact would be less than significant.
cii, ciii. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to increased rates of runoff
that could cause potential flood hazards and effects on water quality under Impact 2.8-6.
All projects implemented under the Plan Bay Area would be required to adhere to the
appropriate local and state requirements that are designed to ensure that flooding
conditions are not exacerbated and water quality is not adversely affected. As such, the
impact would be less than significant.
civ. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to placing structures within
a 100-year flood hazard area under Impact 2.8-7. Existing state and federal regulations
would reduce any potential impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows
associated with projects located within a flood hazard zone to an acceptable level, and
the impact would be less than significant.
d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to project inundation from
flooding, tsunami, or seiche under Impact 2.8-8. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that,
with compliance with existing state and federal regulations, the impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c), while included in the Climate Change and
Greenhouse Gases section of the Plan Bay Area EIR, is related to flooding, specifically sea level
rise, and, thus, has been included here and would apply to the project:
2.5-4(c) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to incorporate the
appropriate adaptation strategy or strategies to reduce the impacts of sea
level rise on specific local transportation and land use development
projects, where feasible, based on project- and site-specific considerations.
Potential adaptation strategies are included in the Adaptation Strategies
(see Appendix F of this [Plan Bay Area] Draft EIR).
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 164
June 2021
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed project’s potential to violate
water quality standards/waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality
during construction and operation.
Construction
During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed due to
demolition, grading and excavation of the site. After grading and prior to overlaying the
ground surface with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and
water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which
could adversely affect water quality downstream.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates stormwater discharges
associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a
land disturbance of one or more acres. The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State’s
General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s
General Construction Permit requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
to be prepared for the site. A SWPPP describes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both
grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development
project. Because the proposed project would disturb greater than one acre of land, the
proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction
Permit.
In addition, the project would be required to comply with Chapter 14.04, Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control, of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes
standards for managing stormwater runoff during construction and operation. Per Section
14.04.180, all construction sites within the City must implement year-round erosion
control, run-on and runoff control, sediment control, active treatment systems (if
appropriate), good site management, and non-stormwater management through all
phases of construction until the site is stabilized. Due to the mandated compliance of
project construction activities with the State’s General Construction Permit and Chapter
14.04 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would not discharge sediment or
urban pollutants through soil erosion, violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality during construction.
Operation
The proposed residential buildings would not involve operations typically associated with
the generation or discharge of polluted water. Thus, typical operations on the project site
would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor
degrade water quality. However, the incorporation of impervious surfaces on the site
would result in the generation of urban runoff, which could contain pollutants if the runoff
comes into contact with such sources as vehicle fluids on parking surfaces and/or
landscape fertilizers or herbicides.
The County of San Mateo has adopted C.3 Stormwater Standards, which require new
development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 or more sf of
impervious area to contain and treat all stormwater runoff from the project site. The
proposed project would replace a substantial amount of existing impervious surfaces on
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 165
June 2021
both sites. Thus, the project would be subject to the requirements of the C.3 Stormwater
Standards related to stormwater treatment. However, the project would result in a net
decrease in impervious surface area within the site. Site 1 is currently developed with
81,478 sf of impervious surface area, and following implementation of the proposed
project, including the addition of pervious landscaped areas, Site 1 would have 81,137 sf
of impervious surface area. Similarly, Site 2 is currently developed with 59,763 sf of
impervious surface area. Following implementation of the proposed project, Site 2 would
contain 54,946 sf of impervious surface area.
Per the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-0074, certain projects,
including transit-oriented developed, such as the proposed project, are eligible for Low
Impact Design (LID) Treatment Reduction Credits. The LID Treatment Reduction Credit is
the maximum percentage of the amount of runoff that may be treated with non-LID
treatment measures, such as tree-box-type high flowrate biofilters or vault-based high
flowrate media filters. The proposed project qualifies for a 75 percent LID treatment
reduction, meaning that 25 percent of impervious surface area will require treatment using
LID retention measures, and the remaining 75 percent of impervious surface area can be
treated using non-LID measures. The proposed project would treat stormwater from the
project site using a combination of self-retaining areas, bioretention within the podium level
courtyards, and two at-grade media filters.
A preliminary Stormwater Control Plan has been prepared for the proposed project (see
Figure 11 and Figure 12) that demonstrates the project’s compliance with the most recent
San Mateo County C.3 Guide.49 The proposed project would divide the site into six total
drainage management areas (DMAs) and associated pervious surfaces, planters, and
bioretention areas. Runoff from each DMA would be either self-retaining, or captured and
directed towards a media filter or one of the two bioretention areas.
The bio-retention basins and pervious pavement would treat stormwater primarily by
filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil, allowing for removal of pollutants. The
self-retaining areas (Site 1 DMA 1 and Site 2 DMA 1) would consist of media filters to
allow stormwater to infiltrate, and be filtered for larger particles and pollutants. Treated
runoff from Site 1 would be directed towards the existing storm drainpipe in San Mateo
Avenue. Treated runoff from Site 2 would be directed to an existing outfall to Colma Creek.
Per the preliminary Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the proposed project, the bio-
retention areas and pervious surfaces would be sized to adequately handle all runoff from
the proposed impervious surfaces and landscaping within each DMA. Thus, the proposed
project would comply with the City and County requirements and would meet the C.3
Standards related to stormwater treatment. During operation, the project would comply
with all relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and would not
degrade water quality.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality
standards or degradation of water quality during construction or operation, and, consistent
with the Plan Bay Area EIR, the projected impact would be less than significant.
49 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, Version 1.0. January
2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 166
June 2021
Figure 11
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan – Site 1
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 167
June 2021
Figure 12
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan – Site 2
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 168
June 2021
b,e The proposed project would include a rezone from BC to a zoning designation that allows
high-density residential. High-density residential development would involve a higher
water demand when compared to the BC land use. As such, the General Plan EIR and
Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed buildout of the site at a lower intensity development than
what is proposed. However, per the Cal Water 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) for the South San Francisco District, groundwater currently accounts for
approximately 10 to 15 percent of the District’s water supplies.50 The volume of
groundwater pumped is planned to remain consistent over time in order to ensure
sustainable groundwater maintenance, and the South Westside Groundwater
Management Plan concluded that the projected groundwater supply meets the projected
demand of 1,535 AFY.51 As such, even though the water demand is anticipated to increase
with implementation of the proposed project, the increased demand would not impact the
volume of groundwater that is pumped.
Groundwater recharge refers to the percolation of surface water, often stormwater,
through pervious surfaces and into groundwater. Considering the project site is currently
developed and covered in primarily impervious surfaces, the project site does not currently
play a substantial role in groundwater recharge. Because the project would not increase
the amount of impervious surface area on-site, implementation of the proposed project
would not further interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site. Furthermore, per
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard, the
Westside Groundwater Basin is considered Very Low Priority per the Department of Water
Resources, and implementation of the project would not adversely affect recharge of a
high priority groundwater basin.52
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the Westside Groundwater Basin. In addition,
the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan
or the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. Thus, the project would be
consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c.i-iii. The project site is currently developed and includes paved areas. As noted under question
‘a’, above, development of the proposed project would result in a net decrease in
impervious surfaces on the project site. In addition, the project is required to comply with
C.3 Standards. Compliance with C.3 Standards would be sufficient to ensure that the
proposed project does not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain infrastructure, cause
flooding on- or off-site, or result in off-site erosion or siltation after development of the site.
Per the Countywide Hydromodification Control Area Map in the San Mateo County C.3
Stormwater Technical Guidance Appendix H, the proposed project would not be subject
to Hydromodification Management requirements.53 Hydromodification Management
techniques focus on retaining, detaining, or infiltrating runoff such that post-project
stormwater flows remain similar to pre-project conditions. The specific Hydromodification
50 California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District [pg. 54]. June 17,
2016.
51 Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan [pg. 3-19]. July 2012.
52 Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard.
Available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/. Accessed July 16, 2020.
53 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2
[Page H-3]. January 4, 2013.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 169
June 2021
Management requirements apply if a project is located in a susceptible area, creates or
replaces one or more acre of impervious surface area, and increases impervious surfaces
over pre-project conditions.54 Because the project site is not located within a designated
susceptible area, the Hydromodification Management requirements do not apply.
BKF Engineers prepared a Storm Drain Report for the proposed project.55 In order to
determine the effects of the project on the storm drain system, the Storm Drain Report
compared the existing and proposed flows from the project site (i.e., Site 1 and Site 2) to
Colma Creek at each of the four outfalls. The existing runoff to Colma Creek was
calculated to be 9.63 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff to Colma Creek,
upon development of the proposed project and installation of the on-site storm drainage
system, was calculated to be 9.47 CFS. Therefore, the overall runoff to Colma Creek
would be decreased in the post-project condition. It is assumed that the impacts on Colma
Creek from changes to the distribution of the flow between outfalls would be negligible
due to the relative proximity of the four outfalls.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, 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. Consequently, the
proposed project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and would result in a
less-than-significant impact.
c.iv. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM No.
06081C0043F, the project site is designated primarily as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
(Zone X), with the edges of the project site designated as an 0.2 Percent (i.e., 500-year)
Annual Chance Flood Hazard (Zone X).56 As such, the project site is not classified as a
Special Flood Hazard Area or otherwise located within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore,
development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no
impact would result.
While the effects of sea level rise on future residents is beyond the scope of CEQA, insofar
as it pertains to the environment’s effect on the project, this issue has been addressed
given the SCEA’s reliance on the Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA streamlining purposes.
Due to the proximity of the site to Colma Creek, a tidally-influenced waterway, portions of
the project site could be subject to flooding, including inundation from sea level rise.
Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c), a Technical Memorandum
regarding Sea Level Rise Strategy was prepared for the proposed project by BKF
Engineers.57 The Plan Bay Area 2040 EIR determined that sea level rise projections for
the year 2050 range from 4.8 and 23.9 inches. The finished floor elevations of Site 1 and
Site 2 have been designed to elevation 12.90 feet and 13.10 feet above sea level,
respectively. The aforementioned minimum floor elevations will be imposed as a condition
of approval on the project. Considering that the proposed building elevations are
approximately three feet above the current 100-year base flood elevation and
54 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management Requirements:
Information for Developers, Builders and Project Applicants. July 2016.
55 BKF Engineers. PS Business Parks – Storm Drain Report – Existing Outfall Impacts. April 30, 2021.
56 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F. April 5, 2019.
57 BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum: PS Business Parks – Sea Level Rise Strategy. March 22, 2021.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 170
June 2021
approximately one foot above the current 500-year base flood elevation, the proposed
project, as currently designed, reduces the potential impacts from sea level rise to a less
than significant level by elevating the building finished floors above the 2050 sea level rise
projections. As a result, this SCEA demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c).
d. As discussed under paragraph ‘c.iv’ of this section, the project site is not located within a
flood hazard zone. Thus, the proposed development would not be subject to substantial
flooding risks. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement,
whereas a seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body
of water such as a lake or reservoir. While the project site is located relatively close to the
Pacific Ocean (approximately one mile to the western border of the San Francisco Bay),
the project site is not located within a Tsunami Inundation Area.58 Therefore, the proposed
project would not be exposed to flooding risks associated with tsunamis. Seiches do not
pose a risk to the proposed project, as the project site is not located adjacent to any closed
body of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release
of pollutants due to project inundation due to flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and no impact
would occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
When development occurs in undeveloped areas, changes to site hydrology can lead to the
degradation of water quality, the depletion of water quality and the exposure of structures and
people to flood risk. Because the project site has already been developed, the hydrology and
drainage patterns of the site would remain fairly constant. The project would involve the demolition
of the existing structures, which would expose site soils to erosion; however, implementation of
construction BMPs would be required to control erosion, and the proposed project would comply
with all stormwater runoff regulations during operations. Additionally, the project site is not located
in an area at major risk of flooding and, thus, would not increase the risk of flooding to people or
structures. The project site is susceptible to sea level rise, but, as noted above, Plan Bay Area
EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c) has already been implemented, and would reduce such impacts.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related
to Hydrology or Water Quality.
58 California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: State of California,
County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle. June 15, 2009.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 171
June 2021
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Environmental Setting
The pattern of land uses in the Bay Area includes a mix of open space, agriculture, developed
urban centers, a variety of suburban commercial and residential areas, and scattered older towns.
South San Francisco, in particular, has a distinctive land use pattern that showcases the decision
to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses. The second
development trend that shaped the arrangement of land uses was the extensive residential
development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, which resulted in large areas almost
entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely
comprised of single-use areas, with industrial uses in the eastern and southeastern portions of
the City, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation
corridors, and multi-family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. According
to the City’s General Plan, single family residences are the most predominant land use. However,
industrial uses, including warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, comprise over a
quarter of South San Francisco's area.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts related to land use are discussed in Chapter 4.2 of the General Plan EIR. However, at
the time of preparation of the General Plan EIR, the CEQA checklist questions were different. As
a result, due to the age of the General Plan EIR, the potential for buildout of the General Plan to
physically divide an established community or to cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect is
not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.3 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts related to land use and planning
that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and
feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzes whether implementation of the Plan would physically
divide an established community under Impact 2.3-2. The anticipated growth footprint
planned for development in the Plan Bay Area is located primarily within areas that are
currently developed. Consequently, the majority of the new development would occur as
infill development, in accordance with the adopted land use plans and zoning ordinances
of the cities and counties in the area. In fact, land use development under the Plan Bay
Area would create more centralized areas of residential areas and commercial centers,
and would not physically divide established communities. The Plan Bay Area EIR does
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 172
June 2021
note, however, that implementation of transportation projects, pursuant to Plan Bay Area,
could result in the physical division of established communities, thus requiring construction
of replacement housing, which could result in environmental impacts. While the Plan Bay
Area EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce prospective environmental impacts from
construction of replacement housing, MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to
impose certain mitigation measures, such as those identified in the Land Use and Physical
Development chapter of the Plan Bay Area EIR. Thus, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded
that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review.
However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual
projects to adopt and implement Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impact related
to construction of replacement housing would be less than significant. In the case of the
proposed project, and as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project would not
divide an established community and, thus, would result in a less-than-significant impact.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzes this impact under Impact 2.3-3. As discussed under
Impact 2.3-3, projects would be required to demonstrate consistency with relevant plans
in order to obtain permits and otherwise meet lead agency requirements. Project review
and approval would include the consideration of project modification, alternatives, or plan
amendments, as appropriate, to allow for implementation of a specific project. Per the
Plan Bay Area EIR, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.3-2 is specific to transportation projects and, therefore, is
not applicable to the proposed project.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce
infrastructure or alter land uses so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding
community, or isolate an existing land use. Currently, the project site is developed with six
existing single-story commercial buildings. The two sites are bound by Airport
Boulevard/Produce Avenue to the east, Colma Creek to the south and west, and Caltrain
railroad tracks to the north. San Mateo Avenue transects the site. Rather than divide an
established community, the proposed project would redevelop the project site with a
Transit Priority Project that meets Plan Bay Area’s intent for development within a TPA.
As such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and
a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. As noted above, in order to accommodate the proposed project, the applicant has
proposed a text and map amendment to the General Plan. The proposed text amendment
would add new text to the General Plan, allowing the City to apply the Downtown Transit
Core (DTC) land use designation to additional areas it deems appropriate for transit-
oriented development. The proposal creates a mechanism for the City to permit the
proposed project to rely on the DTC designation, while the broader General Plan Update
is pending, such that the project can move forward now, rather than waiting for the
adoption of the General Plan Update. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the
Preferred Land Use Scenario (PLUS) for the General Plan Update. Also important is the
requirement for any future project similarly requesting the DTC land use designation to
undergo site-specific environmental review under CEQA.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 173
June 2021
The project also requires an amendment to the DSASP. Site 1 is currently within the
DSASP. The proposed project includes a request to amend the DSASP Land Use Plan to
remove Site 1 from the Specific Plan.
With respect to zoning, both sites are zoned Business Commercial (BC) and require a
rezone to accommodate the proposed residential use. By applying a General Plan
designation that allows high-density residential uses, the proposal would qualify the
project for Planned Development (PD) zoning, consistent with the Municipal Code. Thus,
the project includes a request to rezone Sites 1 and 2 from BC to PD. The PD zoning
would incorporate land uses and development standards from the existing DTC zoning
district, including multi-family residential at a base density of up to 100 units per acre
(subject to increase under any applicable density bonus program). The PD zoning would
also incorporate land uses allowed by the existing Business Commercial (BC) zoning
district.
The proposed land use and zoning amendments are designed to authorize the
development of the proposed project. Accordingly, following adoption of the proposed
amendments, the project will be consistent with the City’s land use plans and zoning. In
addition, the project would be subject to all generally applicable General Plan policies and
Zoning Code requirements. As discussed throughout this SCEA, the project would be
consistent with the applicable policies and requirements.
Additionally, Table 3 of this SCEA IS demonstrates the proposed project’s consistency
with the Plan Bay Area, which constitutes a land use plan adopted for the purposed of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
As discussed throughout this SCEA IS, the proposed project would not result in any
significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by the mitigation measures provided herein. In addition, the proposed project would not
conflict with any City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect, including, but not limited to, the City’s noise standards,
applicable SWRCB regulations related to stormwater, and water quality standards.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.
Thus, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR and a less-than-
significant impact would occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
The project site is located within an urbanized area and a TPA. Therefore, the redevelopment of
the project site with residential uses would be consistent with the development nature of the
surrounding area, would support the goals of the Plan Bay Area and General Plan, and would not
physically divide an established community. In addition, the proposed project would not result in
any unmitigable environmental impacts, and the project would be consistent with applicable land
use plans that were adopted for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related
to Land Use and Planning.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 174
June 2021
X. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip
or 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?
Environmental Setting
The following setting information is based primarily on the Technical Noise Study prepared for the
proposed project by RGD Acoustics (see Appendix F).59
The project site is located in a central area of the City of South San Francisco, surrounded by
commercial development on all sides. The noise environment of the project site would be
considered typical for an urban setting, with regular traffic noise. Nearby commercial and industrial
activities would operate during the day and for portions of the night, adding to the ambient noise
levels of the project area. South San Francisco is highly susceptible to noise impacts in almost all
parts of the City, owing to the presence of major noise generators such as San Francisco
International Airport, US-101, Interstate 280, and extensive industrial uses.
The nearest residential zones to the project site are located over 500 feet north of the project site.
Hotel buildings are located along Airport Boulevard, Mitchell Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard,
located generally between 350- and 1,000-feet from the project site.
Noise measurements were conducted from June 9 through June 11, 2020, to quantify the existing
noise environment. The measurements consisted of four on-site long-term, 48-hour, measurements
(Location LT-1 to LT-4) and five short-term, 15-minute measurements (Location ST-1 to ST-5). The
noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 13, below. Results of the long-term noise
monitoring are presented in Table 13. As shown in the table, Location LT-3, located along Produce
Avenue, experiences the highest level of noise.
Regulatory Setting
Chapter 8.32 of the City’s Noise Ordinance specifies maximum permissible sound levels to be
generated by any property within the City. The maximum allowable level is determined by the land
use category of the receiving property, as shown in Table 14 below. The levels shown in Table
14 are applicable for noises that occur up to 30 minutes per hour. Higher noise levels are allowed,
but for shorter periods of time, or if the ambient noise level is higher than the standards presented
below.
59 RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 175
June 2021
Figure 13
Noise Measurement Locations
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 176
June 2021
Table 14
Noise Level Standards
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
R-E, R-1, R-2, or any single-
family or duplex residential in a
specific plan district
10 p.m. – 7 a.m.
7 a.m. – 10 p.m.
50
60
R-3 and D-C zones, or any multi-
family residential or mixed
residential/commercial in a
specific plan district
10 p.m. – 7 a.m.
7 a.m. – 10 p.m.
55
60
C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster
Point Marina specific plan
district, or any commercial use in
a specific plan district
10 p.m. – 7 a.m.
7 a.m. – 10 p.m.
60
65
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
Source: RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050 provides special provisions for
construction-generated noise as outlined below:
(d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities
which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between
the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine
a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m.
and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they
meet at least one of the following noise limitations:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a
structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made
outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the
equipment as possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project
shall not exceed ninety dB. (Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990)
These exemptions are typical of City and County Noise Ordinances and reflect the recognition that
construction-related noise is temporary in character, is generally acceptable when limited to daylight
Table 13
Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary (CNEL, dBA)
Location
Measured Volume
Adjusted for Reduced Traffic
due to Coronavirus
Pandemic1
LT-1 67 68
LT-2 74 75
LT-3 76 77
LT-4 65 66
1 To quantify any potential reduction in traffic volumes and noise levels due to the coronavirus pandemic, RGD
Acoustics monitored noise levels for two days and compared findings to the measured noise level in 2017 at the
same location. The noise level (CNEL) from 2020 is 1 dBA less than the 2017 CNEL. Accordingly, a 1 dBA
adjustment has been applied to account for the traffic volume reduction during the pandemic.
Source: RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 177
June 2021
hours, and is what residents of urban areas expect as part of a typical urban noise environment
(along with sirens, pedestrian noise, etc.). According to the Technical Noise Study, allowable
operational noise must fall below the threshold of 60 dBA at the nearest existing buildings.
The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes guidelines for noise as well, summarized in
Table 15 below.
Table 15
General Plan Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas
Land Use
CNEL
Range General Land Use Criteria
Residential
<65 Satisfactory; no special requirements.
65-70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and
insulation as needed.
>70 Development should not be undertaken.
Commercial
<70 Satisfactory; no special requirements.
70-80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and
insulation as needed.
>80 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be
provided.
Industrial
<75 Satisfactory; no special requirements.
75-85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and
insulation as needed.
>85 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be
provided.
Source: RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts related to noise are discussed in Chapter 4.5 of the General Plan EIR.
a. The General Plan EIR discussion focuses on development of new residential uses in areas
of increased noise levels. This analysis, which considers the effects of the environment
on future residents, is not required under CEQA, as the court confirmed in California
Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District (62 Cal.4th 369,
December 17, 2015). The focus of CEQA pertains to the effect of the project on the
physical environment. In the context of noise, this would include such things as a project’s
increase in traffic noise along surrounding roadways, or effects of onsite stationary noise
sources on nearby receptors. The General Plan EIR does not specifically evaluate such
effects. Nevertheless, the General Plan includes policies that address potential project
noise effects, as follows:
• 9-G-1 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of
existing noise problems and by preventing increased noise levels in the future.
• 9-I-4 Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches,
and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by
producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures
to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
• 9-I-5 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject
to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL obtain the
service of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and
design of mitigation measures.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 178
June 2021
• 9-I-6 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive
development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65
dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound
walls, where practical.
• 9-G-1 Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning
decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize
the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.
• 9-I-4 Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches,
and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by
producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures
to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.
• 9-I-5 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject
to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL obtain the
service of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and
design of mitigation measures.
• 9-I-6 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive
development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65
dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound
walls, where practical.
b. A discussion of impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise is not
included within the General Plan EIR.
c. The General Plan EIR analyses impacts related to airport noise under Impact 4.5-b. As
noted therein, buildout of the General Plan would not site noise-sensitive land uses within
the 65 dB contour from the San Francisco International Airport. In addition, the General
Plan EIR notes that the 65 dB noise contour will likely shrink in size over time due to
engine upgrades. With the implementation of the following General Plan policies, impacts
would be less than significant.
• 9-I-1 Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the
current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise
abatement programs.
• 9-I-2 Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation
and land use controls.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.6 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to noise that may result from
implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation
measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a,b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to construction noise and/or
construction-generated groundborne vibration under Impact 2.6-1. Impacts related to a
permanent increase in traffic noise and rail transit noise are discussed in Impacts 2.6-2
and 2.6-3, respectively. Impacts related to a permanent increase in transit vibration are
discussed in Impact 2.6-4, and impacts related to a general increase in ambient noise is
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 179
June 2021
discussed in Impact 2.6-5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.6-1(a) and 2.6-1(b)
related to construction-generated noise and vibration, 2.6-2 related to traffic noise, 2.6-
3(a) through 2.6-3(c) related to transit-generated noise, 2.6-4(a) and 2.6-4(b) related to
transit-generated vibration, and 2.6-5 related to compliance with local regulations, would
reduce all such impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the MTC/ABAG does not
have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area
EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the
impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However,
to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to
adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s
impacts related to noise would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the City of South San Francisco will
ensure that Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(a) would be implemented to
reduce impacts related to construction noise to a less-than-significant level. In addition,
this SCEA demonstrates that impacts related to construction vibration would be less than
significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to construction noise and construction-generated groundborne
vibration.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to increased noise exposure
from aircraft or airports under Impact 2.6-6. Projected development could potentially be
located in close proximity to existing airports such that applicable exterior and interior
noise thresholds would be exceeded. Mitigation Measure 2.6-6 would reduce impacts to
a less-than-significant level. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority
to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure
2.6-6, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and
unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies
having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-
referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impact related to aircraft noise
would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the project site is located within “Airport
Influence Area B” and the proposed land use may be permitted without any special
requirements related to the attenuation of aircraft noise. Therefore, the project-specific
impact related to aircraft or airport noise would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-3(c) and 2.6-4(b) are specific to railway
construction/rail extension projects. Therefore, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-3(c)
and 2.6-4(b) would not apply. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-1(a) and (b),
2.6-2, 2.6-3(a) and (b), 2.6-4(a), 2.6-5, and 2.6-6 would apply to the proposed project.
2.6-1(a) To reduce construction noise levels, implementing agencies and/or project
sponsors shall:
• comply with local construction-related noise standards, including restricting
construction activities to permitted hours as defined under local jurisdiction
regulations (e.g.; Alameda County Code restricts construction noise to
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 180
June 2021
between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and between 8:00 am and
5:00 pm on weekend);
• properly maintain construction equipment and outfit construction
equipment with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g. mufflers,
silencers, wraps);
• prohibit idling of construction equipment for extended periods of time in the
vicinity of sensitive receptors;
• locate stationary equipment such as generators, compressors, rock
crushers, and cement mixers a minimum of 50 feet from sensitive
receptors, but further if possible;
• erect temporary construction-noise barriers around the construction site
when adjacent occupied sensitive land uses are present within 75 feet;
• use noise control blankets on building structures as buildings are erected
to reduce noise emission from the site; and
• use cushion blocks to dampen impact noise from pile driving.
2.6-1(b) To reduce construction vibration levels, implementing agencies and/or project
sponsors shall comply with the following:
• to minimize disturbance of receptors within 550 feet of pile-driving activities,
implement “quiet” pile-driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles and
the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving
duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural
requirements and conditions; and
• to reduce structural damage, where pile driving is proposed within 50 feet
of an older or historic building, engage a qualified geotechnical engineer
and qualified historic preservation professional (for designated historic
buildings only) and/or structural engineer to conduct a pre-construction
assessment of existing subsurface conditions and the structural integrity of
nearby (i.e., within 50 feet) historic structures that would be exposed to pile-
driving activity. If recommended by the pre-construction assessment, for
structures or facilities within 50 feet of pile-driving activities, the project
sponsors shall require ground vibration monitoring of nearby historic
structures. Such methods and technologies shall be based on the specific
conditions at the construction site such as, but not limited to, the pre-
construction surveying of potentially affected historic structures and
underpinning of foundations of potentially affected structures, as
necessary. The preconstruction assessment shall include a monitoring
program to detect ground settlement or lateral movement of structures in
the vicinity of pile-driving activities and identify corrective measures to be
taken should monitored vibration levels indicate the potential for building
damage. In the event of unacceptable ground movement with the potential
to cause structural damage, all impact work shall cease and corrective
measures shall be implemented to minimize the risk to the subject, or
adjacent, historic structure.
2.6-2 For all new development that could be located within the 70 dBA CNEL noise
contour of a roadway (within 270 feet of the roadway’s centerline based on
freeways with the greatest volumes in the region), a site specific noise study shall
be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer or noise specialist, to evaluate
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 181
June 2021
noise exposure at new receptors and recommend appropriate measures to reduce
noise exposure. To reduce exposure from traffic-noise, lead agencies and/or
project sponsors shall consider mitigation measures including, but not limited to
those identified below:
• design adjustments to proposed roadway or transit alignments to reduce
noise levels in noise sensitive areas (e.g., below-grade roadway
alignments can effectively reduce noise levels in nearby areas);
• use techniques such as landscaped berms, dense plantings, reduced-
noise paving materials, and traffic calming measures in the design of their
transportation improvements;
• contribute to the insulation of buildings or construction of noise barriers
around sensitive receptor properties adjacent to the transportation
improvement;
• use land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on
development, site design, and buffers to ensure that future development is
noise compatible with adjacent transportation facilities and land uses;
• construct roadways so that they are depressed below-grade of the existing
sensitive land uses to create an effective barrier between new roadway
lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers, park- n-ride lots, and other new
noise generating facilities; and
• maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new noise-
generating facilities and transportation systems.
2.6-3(a) When finalizing development project site plans, noise-sensitive outdoor use areas
shall be sited as far away from adjacent noise sources as possible and site plans
shall be designed to shield noise-sensitive spaces with buildings or noise barriers
whenever possible.
2.6-3(b) When finalizing development project site plans or transportation project design,
sufficient setback between occupied structures and the railroad tracks shall be
provided to minimize noise exposure to the extent feasible.
2.6-4(a) When finalizing site plans for a development or transportation project,
implementing agencies shall conduct a project-level noise and vibration
assessments for new residential or other sensitive land uses to be located within
200 feet of an existing rail line. These studies shall be conducted by a qualified
acoustical engineer or noise specialist to determine vibration levels at these
projects and recommend feasible mitigation measures (e.g., insulated windows
and walls, sound walls or barriers, distance setbacks, or other construction or
design measures) that would reduce vibration-noise to an acceptable level.
2.6-5 To reduce exposure to new and existing sensitive receptors from non-
transportation noise associated with projected development, implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are
not limited to:
• Local agencies approving land use projects shall require that routine testing
and preventive maintenance of emergency electrical generators be
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 182
June 2021
conducted during the less sensitive daytime hours (per the applicable local
municipal code). Electrical generators or other mechanical equipment shall
be equipped with noise control (e.g., muffler) devices in accordance with
manufacturers’ specifications.
• Local agencies approving land use projects shall require that external
mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, associated with buildings
incorporate features designed to reduce noise to below 70 dBA CNEL or
the local applicable noise standard. These features may include, but are
not limited to, locating equipment within equipment rooms or enclosures
that incorporate noise reduction features, such as acoustical louvers, and
exhaust and intake silencers. Equipment enclosures shall be oriented so
that major openings (i.e., intake louvers, exhaust) are directed away from
nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
2.6-6 To reduce exposure from airport-related noise, implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based
on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
Local lead agencies for all new development proposed to be located within an
existing airport influence zone, as defined by the locally adopted airport land use
compatibility plan or local general plan, shall require a site-specific noise
compatibility. The study shall consider and evaluate existing aircraft noise, based
on specific aircraft activity data for the airport in question, and shall include
recommendations for site design and building construction to ensure compliance
with interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL, such that the potential for sleep
disturbance is minimized.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are
referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise
receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive
recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order
to achieve protection from excessive noise. In the vicinity of the project site, the nearest
residential zone is located over 500-feet north of the project site.
Operations
Residential land uses are not typically considered to be a substantially noise-generating
land use. The proposed buildings would include mechanical equipment generally
associated with building ventilation, such as rooftop air-conditioning units, ventilation fans,
and heat pumps. As noted above, the General Plan designates noise standards per land
use designation. The land adjacent to the project site to the east is designated Freeway
Commercial (FC), and to the north is designated Mixed Industrial (MI). As such, the project
cannot generate noise above 65 dBA during daytime and 60 dBA during nighttime as
measured at the property plane of land designated FC, and cannot generate noise above
70 dBA at all times at the property plane of land designated MI.
According to the Technical Noise Study, mechanical noise from the proposed heat pumps
and dedicated outside air system would be an L50 of 57 dBA or less at the property north
of the railroad tracks, an L50 of 59 dBA or less at the properties across Colma Creek, and
an L50 of 60 dBA or less at the properties across Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 183
June 2021
Because the mechanical noise would not generate enough noise to exceed the allowable
threshold of 60 dBA at the property plane of the nearest existing building outside of the
project site, the project would comply with the General Plan noise level standards
presented in Table 14. The conclusion of the Technical Noise Study did not take into
account the fact that the proposed structures would feature parapets, which would reduce
the trespass of noise from the proposed mechanical equipment. With considerations of
the proposed building parapets the off-site noise levels would likely be less than the levels
analyzed in the Technical Noise Study.
The proposed project would contribute to ambient noise levels if the project were to
substantially increase vehicle traffic on local roadways. In order to calculate the increase
in traffic noise due to the project, existing and future traffic noise levels were calculated
using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) with traffic
volumes from Fehr & Peers. The model takes into account the vehicle class, speed, road
surface, and distance between roadway and receptor, and calculates an Leq based on
peak-hour traffic data at a distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The results of
the traffic noise modeling are shown in Table 16. The increase in traffic noise levels due
to implementation of the proposed project would be within the normally acceptable range,
and traffic noise levels at 50 feet away would increase by a maximum of 0.4 CNEL, which,
according to the Technical Noise Study, is not considered significant.
Table 16
Increase in Traffic Noise Levels due to Project
Roadway
CNEL at 50 feet, dBA
Existing
Volume
Existing +
Project
Volume
Increase due
to Project
Airport Blvd
North of San Mateo Avenue 73.4 73.5 0.1
South Airport Blvd
East of Produce Avenue 72.3 72.4 0.1
Mitchell Ave to Wondercolor
Lane
70.8 70.9 0.1
South of Wondercolor Lane 70.4 70.4 < 0.1
Gateway Blvd
North of South Airport
Boulevard
69.8 69.8 < 0.1
Produce Ave
South of San Mateo Avenue 73.1 73.1 < 0.1
San Mateo Ave
West of Airport Boulevard 72.2 72.5 0.3
Mitchell Ave
East of South Airport Boulevard 70.2 70.2 < 0.1
Wondercolor Lane
East of South Airport Boulevard 59.0 59.0 < 0.1
US-101
Northbound on/off-ramp at
Wondercolor Ln
73.6 73.6 < 0.1
Source: RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 184
June 2021
The Technical Noise Study also included an analysis of future traffic noise levels during
the year 2040. Cumulative growth is considered general growth in the area that is not
directly related to the proposed project. As shown in Table 18, cumulative development
would be less than 3 dBA for all roadways in the study area. Therefore, the project’s
contribution to increases in cumulative traffic noise would be less than significant.
Construction
Noise from demolition and construction activities would add to the noise environment in
the project vicinity. Construction activities would range from demolition of on-site
structures, installation of underground utilities, new building construction, and off-site
roadway improvements generally consisting of the removal of the slip lanes at the
intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue. The City’s
Municipal Code sets allowable construction hours, provided that noise from individual
equipment does not exceed 90 dBA at 25 feet, and the noise at any point outside the
property plane does not exceed 90 dBA.
Activities involved in construction and demolition would generate maximum noise levels,
as indicated in Table 17, ranging from 96 to 83 dB at a distance of 25 feet. As shown in
the table, use of the concrete/industrial saw has the potential to generate noise over 90
dB at 25 feet. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased
truck traffic on area roadways. However, this noise increase would be of short duration,
and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours.
Table 17
Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 25 feet
Concrete/Industrial Saw 96
Excavator 87
Rubber Tired Dozer 88
Backhoe 84
Scraper 90
Tractor 90
Crane 87
Forklift 89
Generator 87
Welder 80
Cement and Mortar Mixer 85
Paving Equipment 83
Roller 86
Source: RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
Demolition and construction activities would be temporary in nature, would occur during
normal daytime working hours listed above, and would comply with the allowable hours
set forth within the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. However, there is a
potential that use of the concrete saw would exceed the noise ordinance limit.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 185
June 2021
Table 18
Increase in Traffic Noise Levels due to Project
Roadway
CNEL at 50 feet, dBA
Existing
Volume
Cumulative
Volume
Cumulative
+ Project
Volume
Existing to
Future with
Project
Increase in
CNEL
Project
Contribution
to Future
CNEL
Airport Blvd
North of San Mateo Ave 73.2 73.7 74.0 0.8 0.3
South Airport Blvd
East of Produce Ave 72.9 73.4 73.5 0.6 0.1
Mitchell Ave to Wondercolor Ln 71.6 72.1 72.2 0.6 0.1
South of Wondercolor Ln 71.3 71.7 71.8 0.5 0.1
Gateway Blvd
North of South Airport Blvd 70.8 72.2 72.2 1.4 < 0.1
Produce Ave
South of San Mateo Ave 74.7 75.0 75.1 0.4 0.1
San Mateo Ave
West of Airport Blvd 73.1 73.6 74.0 0.9 0.4
Mitchell Ave
East of South Airport Blvd 71.2 71.7 71.7 0.5 < 0.1
Wondercolor Ln
East of South Airport Blvd 60.2 60.8 60.8 0.6 < 0.1
US-101
Northbound on/off-ramp at Wondercolor
Ln 75.6 75.9 75.9 0.3 < 0.1
Source: RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 186
June 2021
The concrete saw would only be used during the demolition phase, including the initial
phase of off-site roadway improvements, and would primarily be used at distances over
50 feet from the property plane. In addition, the expected construction noise would be less
than the noise levels generated by intermittent ambient noise sources at the nearest
sensitive receptor. Nevertheless, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(a), which
offers recommendations to reduce construction noise to the maximum extent feasible,
would apply to the proposed project. Implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measure 2.6-1(a) would reduce the noise level associated with use of the concrete saw to
acceptable levels.
Conclusion
Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation
of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal
Code. However, construction activities could exceed the noise ordinance limit. According
to the Technical Noise Study, implementation of mitigation to reduce construction noise,
such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(a), would reduce such impact to a
less-than-significant level. The City will require the implementation of such mitigation as a
condition of approval and, thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. Residential land uses do not typically generate groundborne noise or groundborne
vibration during operations. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the
project would occur during construction activities such as demolition, grading and utility
placement. Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building
structural damage.
The nearest building to the project site is a commercial building on South Linden Avenue,
north of the Caltrain railroad tracks. At the closest point, the project site is approximately
108 feet away from the commercial building.
Table 19 shows the construction vibration levels that would be experienced at the nearest
commercial building and the nearest industrial building. Other buildings are located across
roadways or Colma Creek at distances of more than 130 feet from the nearest project site
boundary, and would be exposed to less intense vibration levels.
Table 19
Calculated Vibration Levels from Construction
(PPV in inches/sec)
Equipment
Nearest commercial
building (5 S Linden Ave)
Nearest industrial building
(60 Airport Blvd)
108 feet from Equipment 130 feet from Equipment
Vibratory Roller 0.02 0.02
Hoe Ram 0.02 0.02
Large Bulldozer 0.01 0.01
Caisson Drilling 0.01 0.01
Loaded Trucks 0.01 0.01
Jackhammer 0.01 0.01
Small Bulldozer < 0.01 < 0.01
Source: RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 187
June 2021
As shown in the table, the maximum vibration levels would be 0.02 PPV, which falls below
the 0.5 PPV threshold for damage to modern buildings.
Based on the above, the project would not result in the generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less-than-significant impact
would occur.
Projects that are taking advantage of CEQA streamlining provisions of SB 375 must
implement the relevant mitigation measures prescribed within the applicable EIR. As such,
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(b), which offers recommendations to further
reduce construction vibration, is hereby incorporated as a requirement of the proposed
project and would be included as a part of the conditions of approval.
c. The project site is located within the vicinity of the San Francisco International Airport.
However, according to the 2012 Comprehensive ALUCP for the Environs of San Francisco
International Airport, the project site is located outside the CNEL 65 dB aircraft noise
contour and within “Airport Influence Area B”. Multi-family residential land uses are
compatible with aircraft CNEL below 65 dBA, and may be permitted without any special
requirements related to the attenuation of aircraft noise. Therefore, the impact would be
less than significant.
As noted previously, projects that are taking advantage of CEQA streamlining provisions
of SB 375 must implement the relevant mitigation measures prescribed within the
applicable EIR. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6, which requires
specific considerations for construction within an adopted airport land use plan, is hereby
incorporated as a requirement of the proposed project and would be included as a part of
the conditions of approval.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
Urban environments tend to include various sources of noise such as vehicle traffic, trains, buses,
pedestrians, and sirens. Project construction would add to this noise environment through
demolition, site preparation and construction activities. Construction activities associated with the
proposed project could generate noise levels that exceed the standards set forth in the Municipal
Code. However, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(a) would reduce
such impacts to a less-than-significant level. Operation of the project would involve normal
residential land use, which is not typically considered to be a noise-generating land use.
Construction and operations of the proposed project would not generate substantial groundborne
noise or groundborne vibration, and the project would not result in substantial impacts related to
noise from the nearby airport. In addition, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-1(a) and
(b), 2.6-2, 2.6-3(a) and (b), 2.6-4(a), 2.6-5, and 2.6-6 apply to the proposed project, could be
feasibly implemented, and are hereby incorporated as requirements of this SCEA IS. With
application of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in
any additional environmental effects related to Noise.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 188
June 2021
XI. 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:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other Public Facilities?
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco provides fire, police, and parks and recreation services in the
vicinity of the project site.
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides fire suppression, emergency
medical services, code enforcement, fire investigation, and public education services throughout
the City. The SSFFD also works with the City’s Economic and Community Development
Department to ensure that all new developments are built in compliance with local and state
building and fire codes, and include adequate emergency access and on-site fire protection
measures. The SSFFD has five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. Project Site
1 is located within Fire Station Response Area 61, and Site 2 is located within Fire Station
Response Area 62. As such, emergencies at Site 1 would likely be serviced by Station 61, located
at 480 North Canal Street, approximately 0.4-mile west of the site. Emergencies at Site 2 would
likely be serviced by Station 62, located at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 0.4-mile east of the
site. As of the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment, the SSFFD staffing consists of emergency
response, fire prevention, and administrative personnel, for a total of 87 full-time equivalent and
5.68 hourly and contract employees. The City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element does
not identify a personnel-to-service population target ratio.60
The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) is principally responsible for providing
police protection services within the jurisdictional limits of the City. As of 2016, the SSFPD had a
total of 118 employees, with 83 sworn officers and 35 civilian positions. According to the General
Plan Policy 8.5-I-1, the SSFPD strives to maintain 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. Based
on the most current information, the ratio of officers per 1,000 residents is 1.23, which is below
the goal set forth in the General Plan. In 2016, the SSFPD response times to emergency calls
averaged 3:59 minutes and to nonemergency calls averaged 6:03 minutes. According to the 2017
Municipal Services Assessment, these response times are considered acceptable.61
The project site is within the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). SSFUSD
has nine elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools, and serves
approximately 8,438 students.62 According to the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment, the total
SSFUSD capacity is 12,600 students, and the current utilization (as of 2017) is 70.3 percent.
60 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report. November 2017.
61 Ibid.
62 Education Data Partnership. South San Francisco Unified. Available at: http://www.ed-data.org/district/San-
Mateo/South-San-Francisco-Unified. Accessed July 16, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 189
June 2021
The City of South San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation manages over 270 acres
of parks and open space, averaging approximately four acres per 1,000 residents. The City aims
to achieve a parkland ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents. The closest parks to the project
site are Francisco Terrace Playlot, Sister Cities Park, and City Hall Playlot. The South San
Francisco Public Library is located at 840 West Orange Avenue, approximately 1.4-miles west of
the project site.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General plan EIR evaluated the potential effects of the General Plan on various public
services, including police, fire protection, schools, libraries and emergency services in Chapters
4.8 and 4.9.
a. Impacts to fire protection are discussed under Impact 4.8-c of the General Plan EIR.
Anticipated population growth resulting from implementation of the General Plan would
increase the demand for fire protection services. However, implementation of General
Plan Policy 8.5-I-5, which requires coordination with applicable fire protection providers
and compliance with local, regional, State, and federal plans, would ensure that adequate
fire protection service would be provided as development occurs, and the impact would
be less than significant.
b. Impacts to police protection are discussed under Impact 4.8-a of the General Plan EIR.
As noted therein, new development under the General Plan would increase the demand
for police service. However, the General Plan includes policies, listed below, which would
ensure the provision of police service as demand grows, and impacts would be less than
significant.
• 8.5-G-1 Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a
safe and secure environment for people and property in the community.
• 8.5-G-2 Assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community
design.
• 8.5-I-1 Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all
emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response
times.
• 8.5-I-2 Control and/or intervene in conduct recognized as threatening to life and
property.
• 8.5-I-3 Reduce crime by strengthening the police/community partnership.
• 8.5-1-4 Assess community needs and expectations on an ongoing basis and report
periodically to the City Council on citizen complaints and citizen commendations
received.
• 8.5-I-5 Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, state
and federal plans.
c. Impacts to the South San Francisco Unified School District are discussed under Impact
4.10-a. As population increases under development of the General Plan, demand for local
schools would increase. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to local schools
would be less than significant with implementation of the following General Plan policies:
• 5.2-G-1 Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to
maintain and improve educational facilities and services.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 190
June 2021
• 5.2-I-1 Work with the SSFUSD on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer
needed for educational purposes.
d,e. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impact related to recreational facilities under
Impact 4.9-a. Under General Plan Policy 5.1-I-2, listed below, development within the City
shall maintain the required park acreage ratio. In addition, buildout of the City pursuant to
the General Plan land use designations would achieve the City’s parkland goals. Therefore,
impacts were considered to be less than significant.
• 5.1-I-2 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood
parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new
employees, to be located in employment areas.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.14 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impact to public services that may
result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible,
mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a-e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the need for expanding
facilities in order to maintain adequate schools, emergency services, police, fire, and park
and recreation services under Impact 2.14-1. Development projects that result in changes
to land uses could result in potentially significant impacts related to public service
provision. Implementation of Mitigation measure 2.14-1 requires individual projects to
demonstrate adequate public services and related infrastructure are available to serve the
project, and if applicable, payment of fees towards the project’s fair share portion of the
requires services. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose
certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.14-1, the
Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for
the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such
authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan
Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impacts related to public services would be less
than significant.
As discussed in further detail below, implementation of the proposed project would result
in less-than-significant impacts to public services, including fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Furthermore, the City will require
implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.14-1 as a condition of approval
for the proposed project in order to ensure that impacts related to public services and
utilities are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.14-1 is applicable to the proposed project:
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 191
June 2021
2.14-1 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that
include but are not limited to:
• Prior to approval of new development projects, local agencies shall ensure
that adequate public services, and related infrastructure and utilities, will
be available to meet or satisfy levels identified in the applicable local
general plan or service master plan, through compliance with existing local
policies related to minimum levels of service for schools, police protection,
fire protection, medical emergency services, and other government
services (e.g., libraries, prisons, social services). Compliance may include
requiring projects to either provide the additional services required to meet
service levels, or pay fees towards the project’s fair share portion of the
required services pursuant to adopted fee programs and State law.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The proposed project would include development of a 480-unit multi-family residential
development. As noted above, the SSFFD currently serves the project site, and the
nearest fire stations to the project site are Stations 61 and 62, both located approximately
0.4-mile away. The population increase resulting from implementation of the proposed
project would be expected to increase the demand for SSFFD services at the project site.
The 2017 Municipal Services Assessment provides incident rates that can be used to
estimate the number of incremental fire and emergency response calls that would result
from buildout of the proposed project. Based on the addition of 480 residential units from
the proposed project and the incident rate of 0.1066 average annual calls per residential
unit, the project would result in approximately 52 more firefighter/emergency response
calls per year, or approximately one call every week.63 The addition of approximately one
call per week would not generate the need for a new fire station to serve the proposed
project, especially considering that responses to these calls would likely be split between
personnel at Stations 61 and 62. As such, the project would not result in demand for a
new or physically altered fire station, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
The proposed project would be subject to payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee (Fund
821), which is a fee program intended to fund a new development’s fair share of new or
expanded facilities and equipment for fire and police services. Furthermore, the project
would include fire protection features, including fire alarm systems, fire extinguisher
systems, fire sprinklers, and exit illumination, as required by the California Fire Code,
adopted by the City per Municipal Code Section 15.24.010.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not generate a substantially increased
demand for fire protection services, the project would contribute to the City’s Public Safety
Impact Fee, and would comply with all required fire protection features. As a result, the
need for new or physically altered facilities would not be induced by the proposed project
and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
63 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report [Table A-1].
November 2017.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 192
June 2021
b. The additional population from implementation of the proposed project would create an
increased demand in police services to the project area. As noted above, the project site
is currently serviced by the SSFPD, located at 33 Arroyo Drive, approximately 1.5 miles
west of the project site.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the service population for the
SSFPD. The proposed project would result in the development of 480 additional
residential units. Based on the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment’s identified incident
rate of 0.1476 average annual calls per residential units, buildout of the proposed project
could potentially result in approximately 71 more police response calls per year.64 At a
limited service demand of approximately one additional call every five days, the proposed
project would not individually generate sufficient new demand for a new police station. The
project would not result in demand for a new or physically altered police station, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
The SSFPD have been included in the planning process for the proposed project, and
requires that the project install a camera surveillance system and security lighting around
exterior doorways to improve project security. In addition, the project applicant would be
required to pay the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee for the provision of public services.
Therefore, the need for new or physically altered facilities would not be induced by the
project and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The proposed project consists of 480-unit multi-family residential units, which would
generate additional students in the area. The SSFUSD does not place caps on enrollment
at any of its schools, and regulates school capacity based on class size rather than school
size.
Proposition 1A/SB 50 (1999) prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school
facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “legislative or adjudicative
act involving the planning, use, or development of real property.” (Government Code
65996(b).) Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer
is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” (Id.) Therefore, according to SB 50, the
payment of the necessary school impact fees for the project would be full and satisfactory
CEQA mitigation.
The project would be required to pay statutory developer fees under SB 50, payment of
which would be used to fund school facilities and accommodate increased demand. As
such, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to
schools.
d,e. The project consists of redeveloping a lot that contains existing commercial buildings with
480 new multi-family residential units, which would increase the population in the area.
Based on the City of South San Francisco Housing Element, the City averages
approximately 3.0 persons per household.65 While the City’s average persons per
household rate is generally applicable, the proposed project includes 98 studio
apartments, while the rest of the proposed units are split between 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom
apartments. Considering the small size of studio apartments, the persons per household
64 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report [Table A-2].
November 2017.
65 City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Housing Element 2015-2023. April 2015.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 193
June 2021
rate for studios is considered to be one person. Thus, assuming that 98 residents would
reside in the studio apartments, and assuming the average persons per household rate
applies to the remaining 382 units, the population of the project would be approximately
1,244 residents (382 units x 3.0 persons per household = 1,146 residents with an
additional 98 studio residents). As noted above, General Plan policies, such as Policy 5.1-
I-2, have been adopted to ensure adequate parks and recreational facilities are provided
to accommodate the increase in new residents and maintain the City’s parkland ratio of at
least three acres per 1,000 residents.
The project does include outdoor spaces and courtyards, but not dedicated parkland. For
instance, Building 1 would include two outdoor courtyards, the larger of which would
feature a pool and outdoor lounge space. Building 2 would also include two outdoor
courtyards on the third-floor podium level. The project applicant would be subject to
payment of a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee. The amount of the fee
would be calculated based on Section 8.67.020 of the Municipal Code. The park facilities
fees would be used to fund park facilities within the City, including land for public parks
and capital improvements necessary to provide park and recreation services to meet the
demand created by the proposed project. Considering the applicant would be required to
pay all applicable parkland impact fees, impacts related to parks and other facilities would
be less than significant.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
The proposed project would introduce new residents into the project area and, therefore, increase
local demand for public services, including fire protection, police, schools, parks, and other
services. However, the projected increase in demand for such services would be relatively minor,
and the project applicant would pay all applicable development impact fees consistent with City
requirements and Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.14-1. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measure 2.14-1 is hereby incorporated as a requirement of the proposed project and would be
included as a part of the conditions of approval. Based on the discussion above, the proposed
project would not be expected to result in any additional environmental effects related to Public
Services.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 194
June 2021
XII. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Environmental Setting
The Bay Area includes over one million acres of parkland, and San Mateo County, which includes
the City of South San Francisco, has a parkland ratio of 156 acres per 1,000 residents.66 The project
site is within one mile of several neighborhood and City parks, including Paradise Valley Pocket
Park, Francisco Terrace Playlot, Orange Memorial Park, the Centennial Dog Park, and Sign Hill
Park, among others. In July of 2015, the City adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which
includes an inventory of existing park systems and identifies a plan to expand and improve parkland
in the future.67
Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67, Parks and Recreation Impact Fee,
development projects within the City, including multi-family residential projects, are subject to
payment of a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee to ensure that funds are available
to maintain a parkland ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents and 0.5-acre per 1,000 employees.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.9 of the General Plan EIR considered the effects of the General Plan on the City’s existing
parkland, recreational facilities, and open space.
a,b. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impact related to recreational facilities under
Impact 4.9-a. Under General Plan Policy 5.1-I-2, development within the City shall maintain
the required park acreage as discussed above. In addition, buildout of the City pursuant to
the General Plan land use designations would achieve the City’s parkland goals. Therefore,
impacts were considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.14 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impact to recreational facilities that
may result from implementation of the proposed Plan. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation
measures were identified to reduce these impacts.
a,b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to recreational facilities
under Impact 2.14-2. As noted therein, implementation of the Plan Bay Area would directly
66 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2040 EIR.
67 City of South San Francisco. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. July 22, 2015.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 195
June 2021
increase demand of recreational facilities. However, because impacts related to parks and
recreation would be managed by local jurisdictions, and because the Plan discourages
development within identified Priority Conservation Areas, the impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. The proposed project would include the development of 480 multi-family residential units,
as well as resident amenities such as a Club Room, outdoor courtyards, a pool, and lounge
spaces. Therefore, the proposed project design includes recreational facilities for use by
future residents. Nonetheless, the increase in local population from the proposed project
could result in an increased demand on local recreational facilities. Section 8.67.050 of
the City’s Municipal Code requires that multifamily residential developments pay the
applicable Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee at the time of project
approval. Payment of such fees are intended to fund parkland acquisition and
improvements, and would address any potential impacts to local recreational facilities.
Because the project developer would be required to pay the appropriate Parkland
Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee, and consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR,
impacts related to causing or accelerating substantial physical deterioration of existing
parks or creating a need for the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would
be less than significant.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
The proposed residential development would increase the demand on local parks and
recreational facilities. Because the project would include on-site recreational amenities and the
project developer would be required to pay a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction
Fee to fund purchases of addition parkland and associated parkland construction, the proposed
project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Recreation.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 196
June 2021
XIII. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Environmental Setting
The proposed project qualifies as a TPP under SB 375. Environmental documents for TPPs are not
required to reference, describe or discuss impacts from car and light duty truck trips on the regional
transportation network. The project site is within a TPA, as identified by the MTC/ABAG. TPAs are
characterized by allowing access to multiple forms of transportation including alternative means of
transportation such as transit, bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian infrastructure.
The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under
CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such
impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels.
Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacity-increasing improvements, which often had
their own environmental impacts (e.g., to biological resources). Depending on circumstances, and
an agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its general plan), LOS D, E, or F often
represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the Legislature passed
legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for
environmental analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 743 (2013), Public Resources
Code section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for
certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the
significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall
promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall
recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not
limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation
rates, or automobile trips generated. OPR may also establish criteria for models used to analyze
transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent
of this section.”
Subdivision (b)(2) of section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by
the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as
described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion
shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in
locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (Italics added.)
Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section
provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation
impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 197
June 2021
distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include
the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision
(b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not
constitute a significant environmental impact.”68
The following setting information is based on the Transportation Study prepared for the proposed
project by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix G).69
Roadway Facilities
The project site is located near the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Produce Avenue.
Regional access to the site is provided via US-101 and Produce Avenue to the north, and US-101
and San Mateo Avenue to the south. Figure 14, included on the following page, shows the project
location, study intersections, and the surrounding roadway system. Key local roadways in the
vicinity of the project site are described below:
• US-101 is an eight-lane freeway and principal north-south roadway connection between
San Francisco, San Jose, and intermediate San Francisco Peninsula cities. In South San
Francisco, US-101 is located approximately 500 feet east of the project site, and serves the
project area with three primary access points. Near the project site, US-101 carries about
220,000 vehicles per day. Access points include:
o South Airport Boulevard – northbound on- and off-ramps are located at South
Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane. The South Airport Boulevard access point is
to the south of the project site.
o Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard – there are two southbound off-ramps near the
Project site: one at Produce Avenue and another at Airport Boulevard and Miller
Avenue. The off-ramp at Produce Ave is located to the south of the Project site and
the off-ramp at Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue is located to the north of the
project site.
• Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane north-south arterial running roughly parallel to US-
101 in South San Francisco. Freeway ramps north of Grand Avenue provide alternate
project access from the north. Airport Boulevard also provides direct access to the project
site via one right-in/right-out only driveway located approximately 250 feet north of the
intersection with San Mateo Avenue.
• Produce Avenue is a three-lane street providing access from the project site to
Southbound US-101. Produce Avenue also provides direct access to the project site via
one right-in/right-out only driveway located approximately 250 feet south of the intersection
with San Mateo Avenue.
• San Mateo Avenue is a two-lane street connecting El Camino Real with Produce
Avenue/Airport Boulevard, providing local access to the project site. San Mateo Avenue
also provides direct access to the project site via two full access driveways located
approximately 250 feet west of the intersection with Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue.
68 Subdivision (b)(2) of section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce,
or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation
impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of
transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts
have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR,
a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
69 Fehr & Peers. 124 Airport / 100 Produce Administrative Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 10, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 198
June 2021
Figure 14
Project Setting
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 199
June 2021
Transit System
The following transit services operate within South San Francisco and are accessible from the
project site (see Figure 15):
• Caltrain provides passenger rail service between San Francisco and San Jose, and limited
service trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute times. The South San
Francisco Caltrain Station is currently located approximately 0.5-mile north of the project
site at 590 Dubuque Avenue. By the summer of 2021, Caltrain plans to relocate the South
San Francisco Caltrain Station several hundred feet to the south, which would provide more
direct pedestrian access to the project site via a pedestrian portal with access at Grand
Avenue and Airport Boulevard. After the relocation, the Caltrain station will be located
approximately 0.4-mile north of the project site. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station
offers regular local and limited non-local trains (to Morgan Hill and Gilroy), with 23
northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains and service hours from 5:40 AM to 12:00
AM. In addition, future train schedule improvements are planned such that the South San
Francisco Caltrain Station would receive a train every eight to 15 minutes.
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San
Francisco, and San Mateo County, connecting between San Francisco International Airport
and Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and Oakland,
Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont in the East Bay. The San
Bruno Station is the closest station to the project site, located approximately one mile to the
south.
• San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service in San Mateo
County. There are two bus stops adjacent to the project site: one stop is located
approximately 0.3-mile to the north, near the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Baden
Avenue, and the other stop is located approximately 0.3-mile to the southeast, near the US-
101 NB Off-ramp at Wondercolor Lane. Both stops are served by Routes 292 and 397 (late
night service only).
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths. Caltrans
recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities:
• Class I – Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the
exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with cross-flow minimized (e.g. off-street bicycle
paths).
• Class II – Bicycle Lanes: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.
May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle
lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane.
• Class III – Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are
often signed or include a striped bicycle lane.
• Class IV – Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle
travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of
separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical
barriers, or on-street parking.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 200
June 2021
Figure 15
Existing and Planned Transit Facilities
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 201
June 2021
The area surrounding the project site has a Class III bicycle network that provides first- and last-
mile connectivity to the Caltrain Station to the north. Current bicycle facilities in the project vicinity
are discussed below (see Figure 16):
• Airport Boulevard is designated as a Class III bicycle route, providing shared use with motor
vehicle traffic.
• Class II bicycle lanes are provided on the segment between East Grand Avenue and South
Airport Boulevard.
• The San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) is a Class I mixed-use trail along the Oyster Point
shoreline and Point San Bruno, part of a planned 400-mile regional trail system encircling
the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The nearest access point from the project site to the San
Francisco Bay Trail is approximately one mile away, and is accessible via shared use bicycle
routes.
Bicyclists primarily access the project site via San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and South
Airport Boulevard.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. In the project
vicinity, continuous sidewalks exist along both sides of Airport Boulevard, South Airport Boulevard,
and San Mateo Avenue. On Produce Avenue, continuous sidewalks exist only on the west side of
the street. At the intersection of Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue, a signalized intersection
immediately adjacent to the project site, marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are
provided on all intersection legs. The slip lanes at the northeast, northwest, and southwest corners
of the intersection of Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue have wide vehicle turning radii,
relatively high speeds, and yield control. Sidewalks on Airport Boulevard provide continuous
pedestrian connectivity between the project site and the nearest SamTrans stop and the Caltrain
Station.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Transportation and circulation were discussed in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.3. The
General Plan EIR notes that buildout of the General Plan would result in a potentially significant
impact related to Level of Service at several facilities. Even after the implementation of mitigation
measures, the General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan would result
in a significant residual impact because the Plan would cause a substantial increase in traffic. The
following list includes some General Plan policies that are relevant to transportation planning:
• 4.2-G-1 Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and
emerging employment areas such as the East of 101 area.
• 4.2-G-2 Improve connections between different parts of the city.
• 4.2-G-3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of--way and the BART right-of-
way to establish new streets.
• 4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements.
• 4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all
intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
• 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 202
June 2021
Figure 16
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 203
June 2021
o There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
o The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
• 4.2-G-10 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the
arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various
transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-
miles traveled.
• 4.3-G-1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote
bicycle riding for transportation and recreation.
• 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through
residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
• 4.3-I-7 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the surrounding
area and the rail stations -South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the
Caltrain Station. Components of the program should include:
o Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being
installed.
o Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian
use;
o Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in the
Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas;
o Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all
signalized intersections; and
o Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use.
• 4.3-I-16 Favor Transportation Systems Management programs that limit vehicle use over
those that extend the commute hour.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.1 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to transportation that may result
from implementation of the proposed Plan. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures
are identified to reduce these impacts.
a,c,d. Because the Plan Bay Area is a planning document for transportation projects, the Plan
Bay Area EIR did not specifically address impacts related to conflicts with a policy
addressing the circulation system, impacts related to increasing hazards, or resulting in
inadequate emergency access. Impact 2.1-7 did analyze the potential for construction to
disrupt ongoing operations of the local transportation system, and concluded that, with
implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-7, a less-than-significant
impact would occur.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to a substantial increase in
per capita VMT compared to existing conditions under Impact 2.1-4, Because buildout
under the Plan would result in an overall reduction of per-capita VMT, the Plan Bay Area
EIR determined that a less-than-significant impact would occur.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 204
June 2021
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.1-3(b) and 2.1-7 apply to the project. Measure 2.1-3(b),
which requires incorporation of a TDM plan as part of the project, has already been implemented
(see page 24 of this SCEA, and Appendix H).
2.1-3(b) Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies shall be incorporated into
individual land use and transportation projects and plans, as part of the planning
process. Local agencies shall incorporate strategies identified in the Federal
Highway Administration’s publication: Integrating Demand Management into the
Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (August 2012) into the
planning process (FHWA 2012). For example, the following strategies may be
included to encourage use of transit and non-motorized modes of transportation
and reduce vehicle miles traveled on the region’s roadways:
• include TDM mitigation requirements for new developments;
• incorporate supporting infrastructure for non-motorized modes, such as,
bike lanes, secure bike parking, sidewalks, and crosswalks;
• provide incentives to use alternative modes and reduce driving, such as,
universal transit passes, road and parking pricing;
• implement parking management programs, such as parking cash-out,
priority parking for carpools and vanpools;
• develop TDM-specific performance measures to evaluate project-specific
and system-wide performance;
• incorporate TDM performance measures in the decision-making process
for identifying transportation investments;
• implement data collection programs for TDM to determine the effectiveness
of certain strategies and to measure success over time; and
• set aside funding for TDM initiatives.
The increase in per capita VMT on facilities experiencing LOS F represents a
significant impact compared to existing conditions. To assess whether
implementation of these specific mitigation strategies would result in measurable
traffic congestion reductions, implementing actions may need to be further refined
within the overall parameters of the proposed Plan and matched to local conditions
in any subsequent project-level environmental analysis.
2.1-7 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following
measure, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific
considerations that include:
Implementing agencies shall require implementation of best practice strategies
regarding construction activities on the transportation system and apply
recommended applicable mitigation measures as defined by state and federal
agencies. Examples of mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• prepare a transportation construction plan for all phases of construction;
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 205
June 2021
• establish construction phasing/staging schedule and sequence that
minimizes impacts of a work zone on traffic by using operationally-sensitive
phasing and staging throughout the life of the project;
• identify arrival/departure times for trucks and construction workers to avoid
peak periods of adjacent street traffic and minimize traffic affects;
• identify optimal delivery and haul routes to and from the site to minimize
impacts to traffic, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists;
• identify appropriate detour routes for bicycles and pedestrians in areas
affected by construction;
• coordinate with local transit agencies and provide for relocation of bus
stops and ensure adequate wayfinding and signage to notify transit users;
• preserve emergency vehicle access;
• implement public awareness strategies to educate and reach out to the
public, businesses, and the community concerning the project and work
zone (e.g., brochures and mailers, press releases/media alerts);
• provide a point of contact for residents, employees, property owners, and
visitors to obtain construction information, and provide comments and
questions;
• provide current and/or real-time information to road users regarding the
project work zone (e.g., changeable message sign to notify road users of
lane and road closures and work activities, temporary conventional signs
to guide motorists through the work zone); and
• encourage construction workers to use transit, carpool, and other
sustainable transportation modes when commuting to and from the site.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. Traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed project was estimated
using a combination of existing driveway trip counts from existing commercial buildings at
the site and the locally-sensitive trip generation methodology known as MXD+. The MXD+
method accounts for built environment factors, including the density and diversity of land
uses, design of the pedestrian and bicycle environment, demographics of the site, and
distance to transit, to develop more realistic trip generation estimates than traditional traffic
engineering methods.
Vehicle trips from the existing office buildings and anticipated trips generated from the
proposed project are shown in Table 20. As shown in the table, the project would generate
approximately 1,133 new vehicle trips.
Table 20
Project Vehicle Trip Generation Summary
Land
Use
Size Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed
Project
480
units 2,614 41 118 159 122 78 200
Existing
Buildings
80,680-
sf 1,011 43 21 63 30 39 68
Net New
Trips -- 1,133 -11 71 61 66 21 87
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 206
June 2021
Two freeway off-ramps were selected for queueing analysis to assess conditions where the
addition of project-generated trips may result in hazards to road users. The two study
locations were: US-101/Produce Avenue (southbound off-ramp) and the US-101/South
Airport Boulevard (northbound off-ramp). Because the project would be a residential land
use and the majority of project-generated off-ramp trips would be during the PM, the PM
peak hour was selected as the analysis period. Results of the queuing analysis revealed
that the proposed project would not extend or contribute to queues longer than storage
distances at both off-ramp locations.
The project would generate new pedestrian and bicycle trips, particularly residents walking
to downtown South San Francisco and the Caltrain station. The project would include 240
long-term protected bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the City’s Code requirement.
The intersection of Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue features slip
right-turn lanes that allow turning vehicles to yield rather than come to a full stop before
turning. In combination with increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic from the project, given
the wide turning radii, relatively high speeds, yield-control of the slip right-turn lanes, and
lack of separation of bicycle lanes the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Produce
Avenue/San Mateo Avenue could experience exacerbated conflicts between vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. However, as noted in the Transportation Study, the proposed
project would not create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle or pedestrian system plans,
guidelines, or policy standards.
Future residents of the proposed project on Site 1 would have direct access to the Airport
Boulevard sidewalks and would need to make one road crossing at the intersection of Airport
Boulevard/Baden Avenue to access the future Caltrain pedestrian access point near Grand
Avenue. Future residents at Site 2 would have to make an additional crossing at the
intersection of Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue in order to reach the
Caltrain station. All pedestrians coming from the project site would be required to travel
through the Airport Boulevard railroad underpass tunnel to access the Caltrain station and
downtown South San Francisco. The tunnel currently includes approximately six-foot wide
sidewalks on both sides with limited pedestrian-scaled lighting. As a Condition of Approval,
the City has required the applicant to construct off-site improvements, including installation
of pedestrian-scale lighting along the Airport Boulevard undercrossing, and the removal of
slip lanes and related improvements at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo
Avenue/Produce Avenue. Such improvements would improve accessibility to high-quality
transit.
The proposed project would generate vehicle trips in the vicinity of existing transit services
and would generate some new transit trips to existing routes. SamTrans bus routes travel
along the project site frontage on Airport Boulevard, and Caltrain operates less than 0.5-
mile from the project site. The addition of 87 net new vehicle trips during the PM peak
hour, or approximately one to two new vehicles per minute, would not create a disruption
to transit service surrounding the project site. The project may add net new transit trips to
Caltrain and other public transit routes, but ridership would be accommodated through the
existing available capacity. The proposed project would not include features that would
disrupt existing or planned transit routes or facilities, and the proposed driveways would
not cause disruptions to existing or planned transit service or transit stops. Overall, the
proposed project would not conflict with any adopted transit system plans, guidelines,
policies, or standards.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 207
June 2021
According to the Transportation Study, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in a detrimental impact to existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, or conflict
with adopted policies in adopted City plans. Therefore, the project would be consistent
with the Plan Bay Area EIR and the impacts would be less-than-significant under
Existing Plus Project conditions, and the project would not be a cumulatively considerable
contributor to significant cumulative impacts under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating
a project’s transportation impacts. Per Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a
project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant
considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.
Except as provided in Section 15064.3 (b)(2) regarding roadway capacity, a project’s
effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact under
CEQA. Per Section 15064.3(3), a lead agency may analyze a project’s VMT qualitatively
based on the availability of transit, proximity to destinations, etc. As noted throughout this
SCEA IS, the project site is located within the vicinity of a major public transit stop.
According to the VMT threshold guidelines adopted by the City, projects located within
0.5-mile of a high-quality transit area are presumed to have less-than-significant VMT
impacts unless: the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is less than 0.75; the project would provide
more parking than required by City Code; the project would be inconsistent with the
applicable Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
as determined by the City; or the project would replace affordable housing units with
market-rate units.
The project site is located within 0.5-mile of both the existing and the proposed South San
Francisco Caltrain Station. The FAR for Building 1 is 2.81, and the FAR for Building 2 is
2.92. Thus, the total FAR is higher than the 0.75 threshold. A total of 560 parking spaces
are proposed, which is less than the 720 required by the City Code, given the proposed
unit types. The Plan Bay Area is the relevant RTP/SCS for South San Francisco. The
proposed project would be consistent with the use and intensity that is included in Plan
Bay Area and, the project falls within the projected land use development totals for South
San Francisco. Finally, the project would not replace affordable housing units with market-
rate units. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to
VMT.
In addition, the TDM prepared for the proposed project includes several measures that
would further reduce VMT (see Appendix H). Some of the recommended measures
include incorporation of bicycle repair stands, carpool and vanpool programs and
incentives, subsidized transit passes, and unbundled parking costs. The proposed TDM
satisfies the requirements of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b).
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and, consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR, a less-than-
significant impact would occur.
c. The project design does not include construction of any new geometric design features
that would cause hazards. The project would provide two right-in, right-out only driveways
off Airport Boulevard and two full-access driveways off San Mateo Avenue. The driveways
on Airport Boulevard would not change the existing roadway geometry, while the San
Mateo Avenue driveways include short (approximately 50 feet) left-turn pockets. Sight
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 208
June 2021
distance at the proposed driveways is not expected to change from what is available under
existing conditions, and is expected to be adequate for drivers exiting the project site and
for pedestrians crossing the driveways. Any future vegetation located within the sight
triangles at driveways should be maintained so as not to restrict drivers sight distance
when exiting the driveways.
Implementation of the proposed project may exacerbate an existing hazard by generating
new trips that would use the existing slip lanes at the Airport Boulevard/Produce
Avenue/San Mateo Avenue intersection, which may exacerbate conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists given the wide turning radii, relatively high speeds,
yield control, and lack of separation of bicycle movements. Therefore, the project could
result in a potentially significant impact related to hazards due to design features or
incompatible uses. However, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure XIII-
1, which would be required by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project,
would reduce the aforementioned impact to a less-than-significant level.
d. As noted above, analysis of LOS is no longer required under CEQA. Nonetheless, a limited
LOS analysis was prepared by Fehr & Peers to evaluate LOS at three nearby intersections
under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions to determine
consistency with emergency access availability. The study intersections are listed below:
1. Produce Avenue / San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard;
2. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue / Gateway Boulevard; and
3. US-101 Northbound Ramps / South Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane.
The proposed project would generate a very small percentage of overall daily and peak
hour traffic on local roadways. For instance, the project is expected to generate 61 AM
peak hour and 87 PM peak hour net new vehicle trips, which would represent
approximately one percent of entering volumes at study intersections during the peak
hours. The proposed project would not include any features that would alter emergency
vehicle access routes or roadway facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is not
expected to result in inadequate emergency access, and, consistent with the Plan Bay
Area EIR, the project’s impacts to emergency access would be less-than-significant
under Existing Plus Project conditions and less than cumulatively considerable under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact (see
discussion ‘c’) to a less-than-significant level.
XIII-1 Prior to final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall design and construct the
following off-site improvement to the satisfaction of the City to reduce hazards to
project-generated person trips:
• The project shall remove the northwestern and southwestern slip lanes at
the intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue,
as identified in the design concepts by the City of South San Francisco
shown in Figure 3-1 of the Transportation Impact Analysis. This mitigation
would replace these slip lanes with tighter curb radii, add directional curb
ramps, stripe high-visibility continental crosswalks, and stripe southbound
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 209
June 2021
and eastbound bicycle lane approaches at the intersection. Removing slip
lanes would help slow right-turning vehicles, providing a safer experience
for bicycles and pedestrians. Enhanced crosswalks will also provide shorter
crossing distances for pedestrians, reducing their exposure to vehicle
traffic. The project shall review existing intersection signal timing and adjust
if necessary, to accommodate the new pedestrian crossing times.
Findings
A central goal of the Plan Bay Area is the combination of transportation and land use planning to
decreased reliance on single-passenger vehicles, and increase the use of alternative means of
transportation such as buses, trains, bicycles and walking. The Plan Bay Area concluded that
increased densification of existing urban areas would help support these goals by placing more
people in proximity to existing mass transportation infrastructure and in closer proximity to
employment centers, which would reduce VMT. The project site is located in a TPA and, as such,
the project’s location would allow residents to use alternate means of transportation, which would
decrease the use of single passenger vehicles. Increasing ridership of existing alternative transit
options would support such systems while also reducing the amount of single-passenger vehicle
traffic that would otherwise be created by area population growth related to the project.
Additionally, project-specific Mitigation Measure XIII-1 would ensure that the project applicant
would construct off-site improvements that would reduce potential hazards. Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b), which requires preparation and implementation of a TDM, has
already been implemented. Because the project is taking advantage of the CEQA streamlining
provisions of SB 375, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-7 would also be required as part
of the proposed project, even though the mitigation measure is not necessary to reduce an
identified impact.
Given the above discussion, and the project’s consistency with the Plan Bay Area, the proposed
project would not be expected to result in any additional environmental effects related to
Transportation and Circulation.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 210
June 2021
XIV. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 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:
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. 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 section
5020.1(k).
b. 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 Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Environmental Setting
The San Francisco Bay Area has a moderate, Mediterranean type climate and access to
abundant natural resources, making the region suitable for human settlement thousands of years
ago. In particular, the Ohlone Native American tribe is known to have lived within San Mateo
County. As noted in the General Plan EIR, evidence of Native American residents, such as shell
mounds and middens, have been found throughout the City.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts to tribal cultural resources are discussed in Chapter 4.14 of the General Plan EIR.
a,b. Impact 4.14-b includes a discussion regarding how development of the General Plan has
the potential to disrupt property of cultural significance. As noted therein, known tribal
cultural resources associated with Ohlone settlement are scattered throughout the City.
One such resource is the Native American archaeological village within the El Camino
Corridor Redevelopment Area, which contains Native American household items and
human burials. The following policies have been included in the General Plan that address
the protection of tribal cultural resources:
• 7.5-I-4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by
requiring a records review for any development proposed in areas of known
resources.
• 7.5-I-5: In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource
mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event
that archaeological resources are uncovered.
The General Plan EIR concludes that, with implementation of the measures listed within
the General Plan, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be avoided and addressed
appropriately, and impacts would be less than significant.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 211
June 2021
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
The Plan Bay Area EIR discusses tribal cultural resources in Chapter 2.11
a,b. Impacts to tribal cultural resources are discussed under Impact 2.11-5. The Plan Bay Area
EIR notes that, while identified tribal cultural resources do not exist within the planning
area, the potential exists that previously unknown tribal cultural resources could be
identified during ground-disturbing activities, and a potentially significant impact could
occur. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 (see below) requires compliance with
State tribal consultation regulations and protection of tribal cultural resources should they
be found during construction. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority
to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures
2.11-5, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and
unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies
having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-
referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impact related to tribal cultural
resources would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-5, as well as State law, would be required by the City
of South San Francisco as a condition of approval of the proposed project and would
thereby ensure that the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to
tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 would apply to the proposed project:
2.11-5 If the implementing agency determines that a project may cause a substantial
adverse change to a TCR, and measures are not otherwise identified in the
consultation process required under PRC Section 21080.3.2, implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following measures where
feasible and necessary to address site-specific impacts to avoid or minimize the
significant adverse impacts:
• Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or to
undertake a project, the lead agency must provide formal notification, in
writing, to the tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects
in the lead agency’s jurisdiction. If it wishes to engage in consultation on
the project, the tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of
receipt of the formal notification. The lead agency must begin the
consultation process with the tribes that have requested consultation within
30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes
when either: 1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a
significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource,
or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that
mutual agreement cannot be reached.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 212
June 2021
• Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any TCR
(PRC Section 21084.3 (a).). If the lead agency determines that a project
may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and
measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, new
provisions in the PRC describe mitigation measures that, if determined by
the lead agency to be feasible, may avoid or minimize the significant
adverse impacts (PRC Section 21084.3 (b)). Examples include:
E. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but
not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and
protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace,
parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with
culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
F. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into
account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource,
including, but not limited to, the following:
Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the
resource
Protecting the traditional use of the resource
Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
G. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real
property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the
purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
H. Protecting the resource.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. The project site has been previously developed and, therefore, subject to extensive
ground disturbance. As a result, the likelihood that previously unknown tribal cultural
resources would be found during redevelopment is low. Based on the lack of identified
tribal cultural resources at the site and the extensive disturbance that has occurred within
the project vicinity, known tribal cultural resources do not exist within the site. Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 requires the performance of professionally accepted
and legally compliant procedures for the identification of tribal cultural resources, and is
relevant to the proposed project. In addition, as noted in Section III, Cultural Resources,
the project would comply with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2, California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 7052, and California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.
Pursuant to AB 52, the City distributed notices of the proposed project to the appropriate
tribes. No tribe requested consultation within the 30-day response period.
While the possibility exists that construction of the proposed project could result in a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource if previously
unknown tribal cultural resources are uncovered during grading or other ground-disturbing
activities, the required implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2
and 2.11-5 and State law would ensure that a less-than-significant impact to tribal
cultural resources would occur. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 213
June 2021
5 are hereby incorporated as requirements of the proposed project and would be included
as a part of the conditions of approval.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
Known tribal cultural resources do not exist on the project site. However, if previously unknown
tribal cultural resources are identified during ground disturbing activities associated with the
proposed project, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-5
and compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 7052 and California
Public Resources Code Section 5097, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. As
such, the proposed project would not be considered to result in any additional environmental
impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 214
June 2021
XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c. 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?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Environmental Setting
The project site currently contains six commercial buildings and associated paved areas, and is
located within a developed area of South San Francisco. As such, utilities connections and service
systems already serve the project site. Water service for the project site is provided by Cal Water,
and wastewater treatment service is provided by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno.
Solid waste collection is provided to the project site by South San Francisco Scavenger Company,
natural gas is provided by PG&E, electricity is provided by PG&E and/or PCE, and underground
fiber-optic communication and cable provider lines exist in the project vicinity.
Water
Potable water supplies in the City of South San Francisco, including the project site, are provided
by California Water Service (Cal Water). Cal Water does not have rights to any surface water to
use as a supply for the South San Francisco District. However, Cal Water contracts with the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and the SFPUC delivers Cal Water with surface
water.70 The water provided to customers in South San Francisco comes primarily from purchased
water from the SFPUC, and approximately 15 percent of the water supply is from groundwater.
Cal Water’s purchased water supply from the SFPUC is subject to the Water Supply Agreement
(WSA) between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers, adopted in
July, 2009. In general, 85 percent of the supply comes from the Tuolumne River through Hetch
Hetchy Reservoir and the remaining 15 percent comes from the local watersheds through the San
Antonio, Calaveras, Crystal Springs, Pilarcitos and San Andreas Reservoirs. Based on the Urban
Water Management Plan, the South San Francisco District has a sufficient water supply during
years under normal conditions. However, during one-year or multi-year droughts, shortfalls up to
20 percent or more are projected. Under such conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water
70 California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco. June 17, 2016.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 215
June 2021
Shortage Contingency Plan.71Currently, there is an eight-inch water line in San Mateo Avenue
adjacent to the project site, a six-inch water line in Airport Boulevard adjacent to the south end of
Site 1, a six-inch water line in Produce Avenue adjacent to the north end of Site 2, and a 12-inch
water line in Produce Avenue adjacent to Site 2.
Wastewater Treatment
The City of South San Francisco maintains all of its sewer system facilities and infrastructure in
accordance with the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) per Waste Discharge
Requirements Order No. 2006-003 DWQ, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board,
and Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements and
Sanitary Systems. All wastewater from the City is conveyed to South San Francisco Water Quality
Control Plant (SSFWQCP), which provides secondary wastewater treatment for the cities of South
San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. The SSFWQCP has design capacity to treat 13 MGD
average daily flow. The average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 MGD.72 There is an
existing sewer main in San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to both parcels.
Stormwater Drainage
The City of South San Francisco operates and maintains the stormwater drainage system, which
currently consists of approximately 13,220 linear feet of stormwater drainage pipes, 88
stormwater drainage inlets, and 11 stormwater manholes. The stormwater system contains
various drainage networks that discharge directly to San Francisco Bay through at least 16 outfalls
and one channel. The City operates under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit
No. CAS612008, and requires implementation of BMPs and LID design.73
Currently, there is a 24-inch storm drain pipe in San Mateo Avenue, adjacent to both parcels,
which connects to an outfall to Colma Creek near the southwest end of Site 2. In addition, a
private 15-inch storm drain pipe is located in Site 2, which connects to an outfall to Colma Creek
near the southwest end of Site 2. Finally, a 15-inch storm drain pipe is located in Produce Avenue,
which connects to an outfall to Colma Creek near the southeast end of Site 2.
Solid Waste
Solid waste and recycling services are provided to the project site by South San Francisco
Scavenger Company. Collected waste is processed at the Blue Line Transfer Facility, located at
500 East Jamie Court. The Blue Line Transfer Facility has a maximum permitted capacity of 2,400
tons per day.74 Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Corinda Los
Trancos (Ox Mountain) Landfill near Half Moon Bay, owned by Browning-Ferris Industries. The
landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of 3,598 tons per day, with a remaining capacity of
approximately 22.2 million cubic yards. The closure date is planned for 2034.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity is provided to the project site by PCE/PG&E, and natural gas service is provided by
PG&E. Electricity and natural gas infrastructure currently exist in the immediate project vicinity.
71 California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2016.
72 California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2016.
73 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report. November 2017.
74 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail: Blue Line MRF
and TS (41-AA-0185). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/41-AA-0185. Accessed
July 17, 2020.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 216
June 2021
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of development under the General Plan on electricity,
natural gas and telecommunications in Chapter 4.15. Chapter 4.6 of the General Plan EIR evaluates
impacts related to water, wastewater, and solid waste facilities.
a. Under Impact 4.15-a, the General Plan EIR noted that utilities would be expanded to new
developments as they occur. Because existing infrastructure already exists in most of the
City, and expansion of infrastructure to vacant lots would be feasible, a less-than-significant
impact would occur. In addition, the General Plan EIR concluded that the additional demand
for utility services that would occur from buildout of the General Plan would be adequately
met by the utility providers. Impact 4.15-b determined that PG&E anticipates being able to
adequately meet energy demands to new developments built under the General Plan, and
the impact would be less than significant.
b. The General Plan EIR discusses impacts related to demand for water and available water
supply under Impact 4.6-a, and notes that new development and intensification of
development under the General Plan would result in increased demand for water. However,
the General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan policies below
would ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
• 5.3-I-1 Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County
Water District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the
extent and timing of growth.
• 5.3-I-2 Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively
promote the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new
construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings.
• 5.3-I-3 Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs
associated with providing water service to new development in South San
Francisco.
• 5.3-G-1 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water
supply system to meet projected needs.
• 5.3-G-2 Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed
development.
• 5.3-G-3 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing water
service to new development.
c. Under Impact 4.6-e, the General Plan EIR notes that development under the General Plan
would result in an increase in wastewater generation outside of the capacity of the current
wastewater treatment plant. However, the treatment plant has planned expansion, and the
General Plan includes policies, listed below, to ensure that demand for wastewater
treatment does not exceed capacity. Thus, the impact would be less than significant.
• 5.3-G-4 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the
wastewater system to meet projected needs.
• 5.3-I-4 Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and
timing of growth.
• 5.3-I-6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues
to meet various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should
remain affordable.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 217
June 2021
• 5.3-G-5 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing
wastewater service to new development.
d,e. Impact 4.6-f of the General Plan EIR discussed impacts related to solid waste generation
and disposal. According to the General Plan EIR, the local landfill will have adequate
capacity to handle solid waste generated by the City at full buildout of the General Plan.
In addition, General Plan policies 8.3-G-1 and 8.3-I-1 both encourage a reduction in solid
waste generation and increase in recycling. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed
Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.12 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to water resources, utilities,
and service systems that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where
necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to construction of new or
expanded water and wastewater treatment facilities under Impact 2.12-4. Potential
impacts on water and wastewater treatment facilities capacity would occur primarily from
projected development under the changes in land use assumed by the proposed Plan.
The Plan Bay Area EIR includes Mitigation Measure 2.12-4, requiring projects to upgrade
infrastructure as needed to ensure adequate capacity exists to serve the project and other
demand. The Plan Bay Area EIR also analyzed the potential impact related to construction
of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities under Impact 2.12-3. Development
outside of urbanized areas could require the construction of new stormwater drainage
systems, and this impact would be potentially significant. Because the MTC/ABAG does
not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-3 and 2.12-4, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that
the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review.
However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual
projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the
project’s impacts related to water, sewer, and drainage improvements would be less than
significant.
In addition, considering the proposed project is located at an infill location, the existing
utility infrastructure in the vicinity of the site is sufficient to the serve the proposed project.
As such, project-specific impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR Impact 2.12-1 analyzed the potential impact related to insufficient
water supplies from existing entitlements and resources to serve expected development.
Development under the Plan would increase demand for water, and could result in
insufficient water supplies. Plan Bay Area EIR includes Mitigation Measure 2.12-1,
requiring implementing agencies and/or project sponsors to require that land use and
transportation project sponsors coordinate with water suppliers to ensure adequate water
supplies exist or comply with project-level CEQA review and incorporate on-site water
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 218
June 2021
conservation strategies, water budgeting, and incorporation of recycled water for non-
potable use. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain
mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12-1, the Plan Bay
Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the
program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority
require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area
EIR mitigation, the project’s impact related to water supplies would be less than significant.
In the case of the proposed project, the City will implement the required mitigation to
ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the water provider for the proposed project
would have sufficient water supply to serve future demand during dry years.
Consequently, project-specific impacts related to water supply would be less than
significant.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR Impact 2.12-2 analyzed the potential impact related to inadequate
wastewater treatment capacity to serve new development. Development under the Plan
would increase demand for water treatment, and could result in exceedance of the
wastewater treatment capacity. Implementation of Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.12-
2 would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
d,e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to insufficient landfill capacity
under Impact 2.12-5. The solid waste generated by both land use and transportation
projects could reduce the capacity of existing landfills, leading to earlier closure dates than
currently anticipated and a need for increased landfill capacity. Plan Bay Area EIR
includes Mitigation Measure 2.12-5, requiring implementing agencies and/or project
sponsors to apply landfill diversion strategies including re-using building materials,
maintaining structures where applicable, developing construction waste management
plans, and using guidance from the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA).
Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation
measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12-5, the Plan Bay Area EIR
concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level
review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require
individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR
mitigation, the project’s impact related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. In
the case of the proposed project, the City will implement the required mitigation to ensure
that potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the increase in solid waste generation
from the proposed project would not be considered significant, and the landfill would have
sufficient capacity. Therefore, project-specific impacts related to the generation of solid
waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, and compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12-3(c) only applies to transportation projects requiring
Caltrans review and, therefore, would not apply to the proposed project. Plan Bay Area EIR
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 219
June 2021
Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a) through (c), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a) and (b), 2.12-4, and 2.12-5 would
apply to the proposed project:
2.12-1(a) Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• For projects that could increase demand for water, project sponsors shall
coordinate with the relevant water service provider to ensure that the
provider has adequate supplies and infrastructure to accommodate the
increase in demand. If the current infrastructure servicing the project site is
found to be inadequate, infrastructure improvements shall be identified in
each project’s CEQA documentation.
• Implement water conservation measures which result in reduced demand
for potable water. This could include reducing the use of potable water for
landscape irrigation (such as through drought-tolerant plantings, water-
efficient irrigation systems, the capture and use of rainwater) and the use
of water-conserving fixtures (such as dual-flush toilets, waterless urinals,
reduced flow faucets).
• Coordinate with the water provider to identify an appropriate water
consumption budget for the size and type of project, and designing and
operating the project accordingly.
• For projects located in an area with existing reclaimed water conveyance
infrastructure and excess reclaimed water capacity, use reclaimed water
for non-potable uses, especially landscape irrigation. For projects in a
location planned for future reclaimed water service, projects should install
dual plumbing systems in anticipation of future use. Large developments
could treat wastewater onsite to tertiary standards and use it for non-
potable uses onsite.
2.12-1(b) Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall require the construction
phase of transportation projects to connect to reclaimed water distribution systems
for non-potable water needs, when feasible based on project- and site-specific
considerations.
2.12-1(c) Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall require transportation
projects with landscaping to use drought-resistant plantings or connect to
reclaimed water distribution systems for irrigation and other non-potable water
needs when available and feasible based on project- and site-specific
considerations.
2.12-2 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement mitigations
measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific
considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA review of individual future projects,
implementing agencies and project sponsors shall determine whether
sufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists for a proposed project.
These CEQA determinations must ensure that the proposed development
can be served by its existing or planned treatment capacity. If adequate
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 220
June 2021
capacity does not exist, project sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant
service provider to ensure that adequate public services and utilities could
accommodate the increased demand, and if not, infrastructure
improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified
in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant public service
provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking project-level review
as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new facilities.
• Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall also require
compliance with Mitigation Measure 2.12-1(a), and MTC shall require
implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(b), and/or 2.12-1(c) listed
under Impact 2.12-1, as feasible based on project- and site-specific
considerations to reduce water usage and, subsequently, wastewater
flows.
2.12-3(a) Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on project-and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA review of individual future projects,
implementing agencies and project sponsors shall determine whether
sufficient stormwater drainage facilities exist for a proposed project. These
CEQA determinations must ensure that the proposed development can be
served by its existing or planned drainage capacity. If adequate stormwater
drainage facilities do not exist, project sponsors shall coordinate with the
appropriate utility and service provider to ensure that adequate facilities
could accommodate the increased demand, and if not, infrastructure and
facility improvements shall be identified in each project’s CEQA
determination. The relevant public service provider or utility shall be
responsible for undertaking project-level review as necessary to provide
CEQA clearance for new facilities.
• For projects of greater than 1 acre in size, reduce stormwater runoff caused
by construction by implementing stormwater control best practices, based
on those required for a SWPPP.
• Model and implement a stormwater management plan or site design that
prevents the post-development peak discharge rate and quantity from
exceeding predevelopment rates.
2.12-3(b) Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• Transportation projects shall incorporate stormwater control, retention, and
infiltration features, such as detention basins, bioswales, vegetated median
strips, and permeable paving, early into the design process to ensure that
adequate acreage and elevation contours are planned.
2.12-4 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 221
June 2021
• For projects that could increase demand on water and wastewater
treatment facilities, project sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant
service provider to ensure that the existing public services and utilities
could accommodate the increase in demand. If the current infrastructure
servicing the project site is found to be inadequate, infrastructure
improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified
in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant public service
provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking project-level review
as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new facilities. Further,
Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a), 2.12-1(b), 2.12-1(c), and 2.12-2 would
reduce water demand and wastewater generation, and subsequently
reduce the need for new or expanded water and wastewater treatment
facilities. Mitigation Measures 2.12-3(a), 2.12-3(b), and 2.12-3(c) would
also mitigate the impact of additional stormwater runoff from land use and
transportation projects on existing wastewater treatment facilities.
2.12-5 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• providing an easily accessible area that is dedicated to the collection and
storage of non-hazardous recycling materials
• maintaining or re-using existing building structures and materials during
building renovations and redevelopment
• using salvaged, refurbished or reused materials, to help divert such items
from landfills
• for transportation projects, diverting construction waste from landfills,
where feasible, through means such as:
o the submission and implementation of a construction waste
management plan that identifies materials to be diverted from
disposal
o establishing diversion targets, possibly with different targets for
different types and scales of development
o helping developments share information on available materials with
one another, to aid in the transfer and use of salvaged materials;
and
• applying the specifications developed by the Construction Materials
Recycling Association (CMRA) to assist contractors and developers in
diverting materials from construction and demolition projects, where
feasible (RMC 2006).
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The project site is currently developed, and located in an urban area. Therefore, water,
wastewater, stormwater, electricity, and natural gas infrastructure already exist to serve
the proposed project.
As part of the proposed project, a new eight-inch sewer lateral for Building 1 would connect
to an existing manhole on the north side of San Mateo Avenue, connecting to the existing
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 222
June 2021
sewer line in San Mateo Avenue. Additionally, the project would include installation of a
six-inch sewer lateral for Building 2 at an existing manhole within the sidewalk on the south
side of San Mateo Avenue, connecting to the existing sewer in San Mateo Avenue. Based
on a Technical Memorandum prepared for the proposed project by BKF Engineers, the
existing sewer main would have adequate capacity for the proposed project if the main is
an eight-inch line, per the initial survey.75
In addition, the project would include construction of a storm drain connection for Building
1 via a new manhole installed on the existing storm drain pipe in San Mateo Avenue, and
a storm drain connection for Building 2 via a new manhole on the private storm drain pipe
in Parcel 2, which connects to an existing outfall to Colma Creek. The Technical
Memorandum concludes that both stormwater lines have sufficient capacity to serve the
proposed project.76 The City of South San Francisco has provided a Will-Serve Letter
indicating that the City will provide both sanitary sewer and storm drain service to the
proposed project.77
The project would receive water supply through the following network: an eight-inch water
line that currently exists within San Mateo Avenue adjacent to the site; a six-inch water
line that is located in a portion of Airport Boulevard adjacent to the south end of Site 1; a
six-inch water line that is located in a portion of Produce Avenue adjacent to the north end
of Site 2; and a 12-inch water line that is located in Produce Avenue adjacent to Site 2.
Based on preliminary fire flow calculations prepared as part of the Technical
Memorandum, there is sufficient flow and pressure in the existing water mains to provide
sufficient water for fire protection.78 In addition, Cal Water has provided a Will Serve Letter,
which indicates that Cal Water will provide water service to the proposed project.79
Electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of
connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity.
Therefore, the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,
stormwater drainage, or other utility infrastructure would not be required.
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12-3(c) only applies to transportation projects
requiring Caltrans review and, therefore, would not apply to the proposed project. Plan
Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-3(a) and 2.12-4 apply to the project. Considering
the project would have access to adequate infrastructure, the intent of the measures has
already been fulfilled. Mitigation Measure 2.12-3(b) pertains to incorporating drainage
facilities in the design of transportation projects, and thus, will be required by the City as
a project condition of approval, with respect to the Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San
Mateo Avenue intersection improvements.
75 BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum, BKF Job Number 20181418-10, 124 Airport Boulevard and 100 Produce
Avenue Utility Summary. March 30, 2020.
76 BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum, BKF Job Number 20181418-10, 124 Airport Boulevard and 100 Produce
Avenue Utility Summary. March 30, 2020.
77 City of South San Francisco. Will-Serve Letter for 124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave, South San Francisco, CA,
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Service. October 30, 2018.
78 BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum, BKF Job Number 20181418-10, 124 Airport Boulevard and 100 Produce
Avenue Utility Summary. March 30, 2020.
79 California Water Service. Will Serve Letter Tract or Parcel Map No: APN 015-113-180 and 015-113-380, 124 S
Airport and 10 Produce Ave, South SF, CA, 94080. October 31, 2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 223
June 2021
Based on the above, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to
the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b. Based on the Technical Memorandum prepared by BKF Engineers, the existing average
day water demand at the site was estimated to be 22 gpm, and the proposed average day
water demand was calculated to be 116 gpm. This represents a net increase over the
existing demand.
Cal Water’s 2015 UWMP projects future water demand based on historical growth rates
for different land use types, such as single-family and multi-family residential uses, rather
than General Plan land use designations. More specifically, 2040 projections in the UWMP
for multi-family uses are projected using the 5-year historical growth rate. The proposed
project represents multi-family growth that is anticipated regionally, as evidenced by its
consistency with the general projections included in the Plan Bay Area. It is reasonable to
conclude that the multi-family growth associated with the proposed project is included in
the anticipated growth of multi-family. According to the 2015 UWMP, Cal Water anticipates
having sufficient water supply during normal conditions, but foresees shortfalls up to 20
percent following one-year or multi-year droughts. However, Cal Water has prepared a
Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which includes mandatory restrictions in
water use during dry years. As shown in Table 9-6 of the UWMP, the planned
implementation of water loss management measures would result in up to 211 AFY of
water savings in the year 2020. Therefore, with implementation of the planned water loss
management measures and ongoing compliance with the WSCP, Cal Water would have
sufficient water supply to serve future demand during dry years.
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(b) and (c) are related to water conservation
during design and construction of transportation projects, and would be required by the
City of South San Francisco in the project’s conditions of approval, to the extent they are
applicable to the improvements at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Produce
Avenue/San Mateo Avenue.
Based on the discussion above, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact
related to water supply.
c. The SSFWQCP has the capacity to treat 13 MGD average daily flow, and, according to
the SSFWQCP’s website, the average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 MGD.
Based on the wastewater generation rates available in the 2017 Municipal Services
Assessment, multifamily residential units produce an average of 120 gallons per day per
bedroom. Considering the proposed project would include 648 bedrooms, the project
would generate approximately 77,760 gallons per day, or 0.077 MGD of wastewater. The
SSFWQCP is operating below capacity and can treat an additional 4 MGD. Thus, the
SSFWQCP has available treatment capacity to accommodate the proposed project.80
Per the City of South San Francisco design criteria, the sewer pipes are to flow no more
than 75 percent full. According to the Technical Memorandum, the proposed sewer flow
was calculated to be 254.4 gpm. Based on the initial survey, considering the sewer main
80 City of South San Francisco. Will-Serve Letter for 124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave, South San Francisco, CA,
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Service. October 30, 2018.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 224
June 2021
is an eight-inch line, the line would be 75 percent full at 398.1 gpm. Because the project
would result in sewer flows less than the 75 percent limit, the existing sewer system has
adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.
As such, the existing wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand. Thus, the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area
EIR and the impact would be less than significant.
d,e. The proposed project would likely generate an increased amount of solid waste compared
to what is currently generated on-site. Based on the average 2018 citywide solid waste
disposal rate of 3.8 pounds per day per resident, the solid waste generation that could be
expected from the proposed project would be approximately 4,727.2 pounds per day, or
2.4 tons per day. Considering the Ox Mountain landfill has a permitted throughput of 3,598
tons per day, the waste generated from the project would represent 0.07 percent of the
daily throughput capacity. Such an increase is not considered significant, and the landfill
would have sufficient capacity. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to
comply with all relevant City regulations regarding solid waste management included in
Chapter 8.16 of the City’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that the waste generated
on the project site would be served by an adequate waste collection service.
Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Accordingly,
a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
As discussed above, sufficient capacity exists in the water, wastewater, and solid waste utilities
to accommodate the project without the need for constructing new or physically expanded
facilities. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a) through (c), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a) and (b),
2.12-4, and 2.12-5 would apply to the proposed project. Considering the project would have
access to adequate infrastructure, the intent of the measures has already been fulfilled, with the
caveat that 2.12-1(b,c) and 2.12-3(b) pertain to transportation improvements, and would be
required by the City of South San Francisco through project conditions of approval for the Airport
Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue intersection improvements, depending on final
design and applicability. New utility improvements and connections would occur within existing
rights-of-way, and the project would not be considered to result in any additional environmental
impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 225
June 2021
XVI. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco is not susceptible to particularly high wildfire risk, likely due to
the developed and urban nature of the region.81 Pursuant to Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code,
the City of South San Francisco has adopted the California Fire Code (2019 Edition). Therefore,
all developments throughout the City must include standard fire prevention features, such as
sprinkler systems, which would help prevent potential damage due to wildfire.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts associated with wildland fires are discussed under Impact 8.4-b of the General Plan EIR.
a-d. The General Plan EIR identifies eight fire management units to categorize the need for
fire suppression and regular vegetation maintenance. Under General Plan Policy 8.4-I-1,
the City shall institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire
hazards to the maximum extent feasible. The General Plan EIR concludes that with
implementation of the policies within the General Plan, impacts related to wildfire would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Potential impacts related to wildfire risk are discussed under Impact 2.13-8 of the Plan Bay Area
EIR.
a-d. Existing state and local regulations, such as the California Fire Code, exist to ensure that
hazards related to wildfire would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. As such,
81 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in LRA. November 24, 2008.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 226
June 2021
land use development and transportation projects implemented under the Plan would
result in a less-than-significant impact related to wildfire.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the
Proposed Project
None.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a-d. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire
and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.82 In addition, the project site is located within an
urbanized area of the City and is bordered by existing development on all sides. To the
south, Colma Creek acts as a fire break for the project area. The developed nature of the
area surrounding the project site precludes the spread of wildfire to the site. Furthermore,
while not located in an area of high wildfire risk, the proposed project would include fire
sprinklers, as required by State law. Therefore, the proposed project would not be
expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and,
consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
The project site is not located within an area known to be subject to substantial risk of wildfire. In
addition, the project is located within an urban area, within the jurisdiction of the local fire
department, and would include all applicable fire safety provisions to reduce hazards associated
with potential wildfire. Because the project would not impair an adopted emergency response
plan, exacerbate wildfire risk, or expose people or structures to significant risks related to fire, the
proposed project would not be considered to result in any additional environmental impacts
related to Wildfire.
82 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in LRA. November 24, 2008.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 227
June 2021
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. As discussed in Section II, Biological Resources, of this SCEA IS, while the potential exists
for nesting and migratory birds protected by the MBTA to occur on-site, Mitigation
Measures II-1 and II-2 would ensure that impacts to special-status species would be less-
than-significant. The project site is currently developed and has been previously disturbed,
and does not contain any known historic or prehistoric resources. Thus, implementation
of the proposed project is not anticipated to have the potential to result in impacts related
to historic or prehistoric resources. Nevertheless, the implementation of Plan Bay Area
EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-5 would ensure that in the event that historic or
prehistoric resources are discovered within the project site during construction activities,
such resources are protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
Considering the above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts
associated with the following: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially
reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations
to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community;
5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6)
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b, c. The Plan Bay Area was designed to encourage development of the region in a manner
that would promote more sustainable community design and reduce regional GHG
emissions. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area, the
project would contribute to the cumulative environmental goals of the Plan Bay Area.
Additionally, the proposed project was analyzed throughout this SCEA IS for additional
environmental impacts that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts or result in
adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR and
project-specific measures from this SCEA IS, would reduce all impacts to less-than-
significant levels, and ensure that the proposed project would not result in cumulative
environmental impacts. Because the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 228
June 2021
and would not result in any additional environmental impacts, the project would not be
expected to result in a considerable cumulative contribution to impacts on the environment
or impacts on human beings. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures
discussed throughout this document the project would result in a less-than-significant
impact.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
As discussed throughout this document, the proposed project would involve the demolition of
existing structures and the construction of two new residential structures in central South San
Francisco. Infill redevelopment of this nature inherently reduces many potential impacts
commonly associated with development. For example, because the site has already been
developed with structures and impervious surfaces, and the site provides little habitat value. The
increase in density that would result from implementation of the proposed project in close
proximity to high quality commuter rail service also encourages the use of non-vehicular modes
of transportation, thus reducing VMT and GHG emissions. This SCEA finds that, the proposed
project would not result in any significant and unmitigable environmental impacts.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 229
June 2021
H. SOURCES
All the technical reports and modeling results prepared for the project analysis are available upon
request from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. The following documents are
referenced informational sources used for preparation of this SCEA IS:
1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines. May 2017.
2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Update: Proposed Thresholds of Significance. December 7, 2009.
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for
Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. May 2016.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction
Plan: Technical Support Documentation. December 2012.
5. BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum: 124 Airport Boulevard and 100 Produce Avenue
Utility Summary. March 30, 2020.
6. BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum: PS Business Parks – Sea Level Rise Strategy.
March 22, 2021.
7. BKF Engineers. Technical Memorandum: Storm Drain Capacity at 124 Airport Boulevard
and 100 Produce Avenue. March 3, 2020.
8. California Air Resources Board. 2002-07-29 Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. June 3, 2015. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm. Accessed July 2020.
9. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January
20, 2017.
10. California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning:
State of California, County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle. June 15,
2009.
11. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
12. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility
Detail: Blue Line MRF and TS (41-AA-0185). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/41-AA-0185. Accessed July 17,
2020.
13. California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.
November 2018.
14. California Water Service. Will Serve Letter Tract or Parcel Map No: APN 015-113-180 and
015-113-380, 124 S Airport and 10 Produce Ave, South SF, CA, 94080. October 31, 2018.
15. California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco.
June 17, 2016.
16. City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft
Report. November 2017.
17. City of South San Francisco. Community Choice Energy. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/city-manager/sustainability/community-choice-energy#:
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 230
June 2021
~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20has%20joined ,instead%20of%20going%20thro
ugh%20PG%26E.. Accessed June 10, 2020.
18. City of South San Francisco. Historic Preservation. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-division
/historic-preservation. Accessed July 10, 2020.
19. City of South San Francisco. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. July 22, 2015.
20. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Housing Element 2015-2023. April
2015.
21. City of South San Francisco. Will-Serve Letter for 124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave,
South San Francisco, CA, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Service. October 30, 2018.
22. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November 2012.
23. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&report
type=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES. Accessed July 14, 2020.
24. Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin
Prioritization Dashboard. Available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/.
Accessed July 16, 2020.
25. Education Data Partnership. South San Francisco Unified. Available at: http://www.ed-
data.org/district/San-Mateo/South-San-Francisco-Unified. Accessed July 16, 2020.
26. ENGEO Incorporated. South San Francisco Business Park Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment. October 23, 2018.
27. ENGEO, Incorporated. Hanover – Colma Creek 100 Produce Avenue: Preliminary
Geotechnical Report. October 23, 2018.
28. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F.
April 5, 2019.
29. Fehr & Peers. 124 Airport / 100 Produce Administrative Draft Transportation Impact
Analysis. July 10, 2020.
30. Flores, Areana, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication
[phone] with Jacob Byrne, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning and
Management, Inc. September 17, 2019.
31. Flores, Areana, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication
[phone], Rod Stinson, Division Manager/Air Quality Specialist, Raney Planning &
Management. March 10, 2021.
32. Flores, Areana, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication
[email], Briette Shea, Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management.
February 11, 2021.
33. HortScience and Bartlett Consulting. Tree Inventory Report, Colma Creek, South San
Francisco, CA. December 18, 2018.
34. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2040 EIR.
35. M.S. Zuraimi and Zhongchao Tan. Impact of residential building regulations on reducing
indoor exposures to outdoor PM2.5 in Toronto. March 14, 2015.
124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
Page 231
June 2021
36. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
February 2015.
37. Patricia Holroyd, Ph.D., Senior Museum Scientist at UC Berkeley Museum of
Paleontology. Personal Communication [email] with Briette Shea, Associate/Air Quality
Technician at Raney Planning & Management, Inc. March 18, 2021.
38. Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July
2012.
39. RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: PS Business Parks. July 17, 2020.
40. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Regulated Projects
Guide, Version 1.0. January 2020.
41. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical
Guidance: Version 3.2. January 4, 2013.
42. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification
Management Requirements: Information for Developers, Builders and Project Applicants.
July 2016.
43. South San Francisco Historic Preservation Program. South San Francisco Historic Sites.
Available at: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1800. Accessed July 10, 2020.
44. South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental
Impact Report. June 1999.
45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protect Your Family from Exposures to Lead.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#:~:text=
If%20your%20home%20was%20built ,common%20causes%20of%20lead%20poison
ing. Accessed July 14, 2020.
46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ): What is a MERV rating?
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating-1. Accessed
March 2021.
47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model
(AERMOD). December 2016.
48. W.J. Fisk and W. R. Chan. Effectiveness and cost of reducing particle-related mortality
with particle filtration. February 1, 2017.
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND GHG MODELING RESULTS
APPENDIX B
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING RESULTS
APPENDIX C
CAP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
APPENDIX D
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX E
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX F
TECHNICAL NOISE STUDY
APPENDIX G
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
APPENDIX H
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM