Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04_03_BioCity of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-1 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 4.3 Biological Resources 4.3.1 Introduction This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for biological resources. It also describes impacts associated with biological resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. 4.3.2 Environmental Setting The 7.4-acre project site is completely developed. It includes a six-story, approximately 170,235- square-foot office building at 701 Gateway Boulevard and surface parking lots with 558 parking spaces. The project site is bounded by a commercial and office building (901 Gateway Boulevard) and a surface parking lot to the north, Gateway Boulevard to the east, a surface parking lot to the south, and commercial and office buildings to the west. Landscaping on the project site is limited to trees and ornamental landscape features, such as parking and building buffers. The project site contains approximately 227 trees, including 35 protected trees.1,2 The trees and buildings on or adjacent to the project site could provide nesting substrate for bird species. No sensitive natural communities, wetlands, streams, or other aquatic features are present on the project site. The determination rationale regarding the potential for special-status species to occur within the biological resources study area3 is discussed in Section 4.3.4.2, Approach to Analysis. 4.3.3 Regulatory Framework 4.3.3.1 Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (16 United States Code [USC], Section 1531 et seq.) designates threatened and endangered animal and plant species and provides measures for their protection and recovery. Take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed plant or wildlife species is prohibited without first obtaining a federal permit. The FESA also generally requires a determination of critical habitat for listed species. If critical habitat has been designated, impacts on areas that contain the primary constituent elements identified for the species, whether or not the species is currently present, are also prohibited. FESA Section 7 (for actions by federal agencies) and Section 10 (for actions by non-federal agencies) provide pathways for obtaining authority to take listed species. 1 Arborwell. 2020. 701 Gateway Boulevard Tree Inventory and Assessment, 701 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco, California. February 12. 2 City of South San Francisco. n.d. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 13.30, Tree Preservation. Available: http://www.qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/?view=desktop&topic=13-13_30-13_30_080. Accessed: March 25, 2020. 3 The biological resources study area varies depending on the type of resource (e.g., a one-mile radius from the project site, the 7.5-minute quadrangle in which the project site is located and the adjacent quadrangles, etc.). City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-2 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703, Supplement I, 1989) prohibits any attempt to take, kill, possess, sell, or trade migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act applies to whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Although the MBTA itself does not provide specific take avoidance measures, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), over time, have developed measures regarding take avoidance with respect to nesting birds. These measures include avoiding vegetation removal or ground disturbance during the nesting season (typically February 15–September 15), conducting preconstruction nesting bird surveys in a project area during nesting season, and establishing appropriately sized protective buffers if active nests are found. Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation’s waters, including wetlands, lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Clean Water Act provides that all discharges into the nation’s waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; issuance of such permits constitutes its principal regulatory tool. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to issue Section 404 permits, which allow the placement of dredged or fill materials into jurisdictional waters of the United States under certain circumstances. The USACE issues two types of permits under Section 404: general permits, which are either nationwide permits or regional permits, and standard permits, which are either letters of permission or individual permits. General permits are issued by the USACE to streamline the Section 404 permitting process for nationwide, statewide, or regional activities that have minimal direct or cumulative environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. Standard permits are issued for activities that do not qualify for a general permit because they may have more than a minimal adverse environmental impact. Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401 Under Clean Water Act Section 401, applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States must obtain certification from the state in which the discharge would originate. Therefore, all projects that have a federal component and may affect state water quality, including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section 404 permit, must also comply with Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (PCWQCA). In California, Section 401 certification is handled by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The City of South San Francisco falls under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB must certify that the discharge will comply with State water quality standards and other requirements of the Clean Water Act. 4.3.3.2 State California Endangered Species Act Administered by the CDFW, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of listed species as well as species that are formally under consideration for listing in California, referred to as candidate species. Under the CESA, take means to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-3 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (California Fish and Game Code Section 86). Under this definition, in contrast to the FESA, the CESA does not prohibit harm to a listed species. Furthermore, take under the CESA does not include “the taking of habitat alone or the impacts of the taking.” However, the killing of a listed species that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and not the primary purpose of the activity constitutes take under the CESA. State Fish and Game Code, Section 1600–1616 The CDFW has jurisdictional authority over streams and lakes, as well as wetland resources associated with these aquatic systems, under California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. The CDFW has the authority to regulate work that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris waste or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake” (California Fish and Game Code Section 1602.). An entity that proposes to carry out such an activity must first inform CDFW. Where CDFW concludes that the activity will “substantially adversely affect an existing (2014) fish or wildlife resource,” the entity proposing the activity must negotiate an agreement with CDFW that specifies terms under which the activity may be carried out in a way that protects the affected wildlife resource. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act California Water Code Section 13260 requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements).” Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (PCWQCA) definition, waters of the state are “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the reverse is not true. Accordingly, California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether USACE has concurrent jurisdiction under CWA Section 404. If USACE determines that a wetland is not subject to regulation under Section 404, CWA Section 401 water quality certification is not required. However, the RWQCB may impose waste discharge requirements (WDRs) if fill material is placed into waters of the state. Waters of the State Under the recent Wetland Riparian Area Protection Policy (May 28, 2020), RWQCBs will maintain jurisdiction over features excluded in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Army’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR). The newly adopted regulations (April 2, 2019) create a new statewide wetland definition that expands to features not previously covered under federal law and creates a new permitting program for activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill materials to any waters of the state. The new rules are adopted under the state PCWQCA. Under the latter act, waters of the state are broadly defined as “[a]ny surface water or groundwater, including saline waters within state boundaries,” including both natural and certain artificial or constructed facilities. Waters of the state include both waters of the United States and non-federal waters of the state. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-4 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 California Native Plant Protection Act The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CNPPA) prohibits the importation of rare and endangered plants into California, take of rare and endangered plants, and sale of rare and endangered plants. The CESA defers to the CNPPA, ensuring that state-listed plant species are protected when state agencies are involved in projects that are subject to CEQA. In this case, plants that are listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under the CESA but rather under CEQA. California Fish and Game Code – Fully Protected Species Certain species are considered fully protected, meaning that the California Fish and Game Code explicitly prohibits all take of individuals from these species, except for take permitted for scientific research. Fully protected amphibians and reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals are listed in Sections 5050, 5515, 3511, and 4700, respectively, of the California Fish and Game Code. It is possible for a species to be protected under the California Fish and Game Code but not be fully protected. For instance, the mountain lion (Puma concolor) is protected under Section 4800 et seq. but is not a fully protected species. California Fish and Game Code – Protection of Birds and Their Nests Under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks) or Strigiformes (owls) or of their nests and eggs. Migratory non-game birds are protected under Section 3513, whereas other specified birds are protected under Section 3800. 4.3.3.3 Local South San Francisco General Plan The City of South San Francisco (City) 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The City General Plan contains an Open Space and Conservation Element, which outlines policies relating to habitat and biological resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and historic and cultural resources conservation. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable to biological resources: l Policy 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. l Policy 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 Figure 7-1. l Policy 7.2-G-1: Comply with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-5 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 l Policy 7.2-G-3: Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the City. l Policy 7.2-I-1: Continue working with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and continue participation in the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality. South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, Tree Preservation, of the South San Francisco Municipal Code concerns the preservation of trees for the health, welfare, and quality of life of the citizens of the City. Trees preserve the scenic beauty of the City, maintain ecological balance, prevent the erosion of topsoil, counteract air pollution and oxygenate the air, absorb noise, maintain a climatic and microclimatic balance, help block wind, and provide shade and color. The chapter is designed to: l Provide standards and requirements for the protection of certain large trees (trees with a circumference of 48 inches or greater at 54 inches above the natural grade), heritage trees, as well as trees and stands with unique characteristics (having been so designated by the Parks and Recreation director); l Provide standards and requirements for the planting and maintenance of trees for new development; and l Establish recommended standards for the planting and maintaining of trees on property that is already developed. The chapter achieves these objectives in ways that support and encourage reasonable economic enjoyment of private property, not in ways that prevent it (Ordinance 1271, Section 1 [part], 2000; Ordinance 1060, Section 1 [part], 1989). According to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, certain trees are subject to conditions before being removed, pruned, or otherwise materially altered. Protected trees include heritage trees and are defined by South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 13.30.020 as follows: 1. Any upright, single-trunked tree of a species not considered to be a heritage tree, as defined in Subsection 3, below, or listed in Subsection 2, below, with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade; or 2. Any upright, single-trunked tree of the following species: blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), myoporum (Myoporum lactum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), glossy privet (Lingustrum lucidum), or Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra), with a circumference of 75 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade; or 3. Any upright, single-trunked tree considered to be a heritage tree species, with a circumference of 30 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade. A heritage tree means any of the following: California bay (Umbellaria californica), oak (Quercus spp.), cedar (Cedrus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus asplenifolium), strawberry tree (Arbutus spp.), mayten (Maytenus boaria), or little gem dwarf southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora, “Little Gem”). City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-6 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 4. A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director, based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance, or other factor; or 5. A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Protected trees cannot be removed or pruned without a permit from the City and must be protected from development-related impacts such as soil compaction and underground trenching for utilities. In addition, new developments must conform to a series of tree planting requirements. Gateway Specific Plan The Gateway Specific Plan covers the portion of the East of 101 Area Plan from east of the Caltrain tracks to the eastern boundary of the parcels along the east side of Gateway Boulevard and the area between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue on the northern and southern boundaries. The Specific Plan is “intended to provide for various commercial and research and development land uses integrated by consistent development standards.” The Gateway Specific Plan includes the following construction standards and open space standards applicable to biological resources: l Construction Standard 1(f): Protection of Trees. Construction vehicles and equipment and excavated soils shall be kept away from under the canopy of any trees on the Site which are to be preserved. l Construction Standard 3(a)-(f): In general, to be approved, landscaping plans ordinarily must provide for the following: a. Completion of landscaping on the Site contemporaneously with completion of the Building and other Improvements on the Site; b. Automatic underground sprinkling systems for all landscaped areas; c. Landscaping which does not obstruct sight lines at street or driveway intersections; d. Preservation of existing trees to the extent practical; e. At least one (1) tree for each 2,000 square feet of area between Building lines and street Property Lines with the exception of paved areas and parking islands; f. Reasonable access to public and private utility lines and easements for installation and repair. l Open Space Standards. Open space areas shall be conserved, designed and developed to enhance the environmental quality of the Site and to achieve safe, efficient and harmonious development of the Site. East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan, which was adopted in 1994 and most recently amended in 2016, sets forth specific land use policies for the East of 101 Area. The City interprets the East of 101 Area Plan as a design-level document. Per Policy IM-5, the Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by the land use regulations of the East of 101 Area Plan. Therefore, the policies set forth in the General City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-7 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Plan are the guiding policies and supersede all Conservation Element policies set forth in Chapter 11 of the East of 101 Area Plan. Nonetheless, the East of 101 Area Plan contains the following policies applicable to biological resources: l Policy CON-4: The City shall take all feasible measures to preserve any sensitive plant and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area. l Policy CON-5: Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area project sponsors shall conduct environmental analyses to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species. l Policy CON-6: If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a proposed project the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate mitigation measures. l Policy CON-7: New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to incorporate the following measures into the project design: ¡ Shield lights to reduce offsite glare. ¡ Provide buffer areas of at least 100 feet between known sensitive resources and the development area. ¡ Landscape all onsite buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas from adjacent land uses. ¡ Restrict entry to habitat areas through devices such as fencing, landscaping, or signage. ¡ Ensure that runoff from development does not adversely affect the biotic values of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas. 4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 4.3.4.1 Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant biological resources impact if it would: l 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; l Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; l Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal areas, etc., through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; l Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; l Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or l Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-8 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 4.3.4.2 Approach to Analysis Evaluation of the proposed project is based on a desktop review of the following sources: l California Natural Diversity Database4 (CNDDB) species list query for a 1-mile buffer around the project site; l California Native Plant Society5 species list query for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) South San Francisco (3712264), Hunters Point (3712263), Montara Mountain (3712254), and San Mateo (3712253) 7.5-minute quadrangles; l USFWS6 Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) query of the project site; l Arborwell 701 Gateway Boulevard Tree Inventory and Assessment;7 l City of South San Francisco General Plan;8 l National Wetland Inventory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the identification of waters and wetlands, using existing water/wetland inventory data;9,10 and l Aerial imagery from Google Earth.11 4.3.4.3 Impact Evaluation Impact BIO-1: The proposed project would not 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. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The project site and surrounding area are characterized by dense urban development and are void of natural land cover or communities. Special-status species that have the potential to occur on the project site or in the surrounding area include the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California Natural Diversity Database RareFind Records Search. RareFind Version 5. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed: March 24, 2020. 5 California Native Plant Society. 2019. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/Html?item=checkbox_9.htm. Accessed: March 24, 2020. 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. IPaC Species List. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed: March 24, 2020. 7 Arborwell. 2020. 701 Gateway Boulevard Tree Inventory and Assessment. Prepared for Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., San Francisco, CA. 8 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 7: Open Space and Conservation Element. Available: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community- development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed: March 25, 2020. 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. National Wetland Inventory. October 8. Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html. Accessed: March 25, 2020. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. WATERS GeoViewer. Available: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed: March 24, 2020. 11 Google Earth Pro. 2018. Online research, 751 Gateway Boulevard, 37.660400°N and -122.397050°W. Available: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/#earth-pro. Accessed: March 24, 2020. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-9 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Pallid bat is designated as a species of special concern by CDFW. Suitable foraging habitat is open, natural land cover such as grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. For roosting, pallid bat prefers rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with access to open habitats for foraging. Day roosts are in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and buildings; night roosts may be in more open sites, such as porches and open buildings. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures, and pallid bats are very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.12 Although pallid bat may forage over the project area on occasion, the project site does not provide suitable foraging or roosting habitat for the species. Due to the marginal roosting habitat, lack of foraging habitat, and high level of disturbance, it is considered unlikely that pallid bat would be present at the project site. There are no recent CNDDB occurrences of pallid bat in San Mateo County and no CNDDB occurrences of pallid bat in nearby San Francisco County. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for pallid bat (occurrence #294) is from 1947 and located approximately 3.2 miles south of the project site. Therefore, impacts on pallid bat foraging habitat are not likely, and the impact on pallid bat would be less than significant. Peregrine falcon is designated as fully protected by CDFW. Peregrine falcons normally nest in a scrape on a cliff ledge, but will also nest in snags or large vacant nests in trees and on structure ledges including buildings; pigeons are often favored prey around cities.13 Although nesting habitat onsite is marginal due to the moderate stature of the existing on-site trees and the six- story14 existing building on the project site, the buildings and trees within and surrounding the project site may provide suitable nesting and roosting habitat for this species. Additionally, open- air space in and around the project site provides foraging habitat if prey is present. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for peregrine falcon (occurrence #55) was in 2014. Although CNDDB does not disclose the exact location of the occurrence, the size of the occurrence area is approximately 8 square miles and it includes the project site. The CNDDB occurrence indicates the nest was located on the side of a hangar, which is a structure typically at an airport. Thus, it is presumed the occurrence was approximately two miles south of the project site at San Francisco International Airport. Nonetheless, if nests of this species are present on-site or in the surrounding area, and eggs, nestlings, or nesting individuals are harmed or killed during tree removal or substantially affected by construction noise or nighttime lighting during operation, a significant impact would occur. On-site buildings and landscaped areas may also provide suitable nesting habitat for resident and migratory birds that are protected by state (California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513) and federal (MBTA) laws. If the project is implemented during the nesting season (February 15–September 15), tree removal and construction associated with the project could impact active nests, resulting in take (i.e., direct mortality of adult or young birds, the destruction of active nests, disturbance of nesting adults, with associated nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort), which would be a significant impact. 12 Harris, J. 2008. Life history account for Pallid Bat. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Version 9.0. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. . Available from: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2349 Accessed: July 28, 2020. . Accessed July 28, 2020. 13 National Audubon Society, 2018. Guide to North American Birds –Peregrine Falcon (website). Available online at: https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/peregrine-falcon. Accessed July 21, 2020. 14 The six-story building within the project site is considered to be of moderate stature because peregrine falcons have only been documented to nest on a 33-story building in the City of San Francisco. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-10 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI-1, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas, would reduce potential impacts on peregrine falcon and other nesting birds covered under the California Fish and Game Code and MBTA to less than significant with mitigation by ensuring that project activities would not affect nesting special-status species or other resident or migratory birds. Mitigation Measure BI-1: Preconstuction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas The project sponsor shall protect nesting birds and their nests during construction by implementation of the following measures: a. To the extent feasible, conduct initial activities, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, tree trimming or removal, ground disturbance, building or parking lot demolition, site grading, and other construction activities which may compromise breeding birds or the success of their nests outside the nesting season (February 15– September 15). b. If construction occurs during the bird nesting season, a qualified wildlife biologist* shall conduct a nesting bird preconstruction survey within 14 days prior to the start of construction or demolition at areas that have not been previously disturbed by project activities or after any construction breaks of 14 days or more. The survey shall be performed within 100 feet of the applicable construction phase area in order to locate any active nests of passerine species and within 300 feet of the applicable construction phase area to locate any active raptor (birds of prey) nests, and this survey shall be of those areas that constitute suitable habitat for these species. c. If active nests are located during the preconstruction nesting bird survey, a qualified biologist shall determine if the schedule of construction activities could affect the active nests; if so, the following measures would apply: 1. If the qualified biologist determines that construction is not likely to affect an active nest, construction may proceed without restriction; however, a qualified biologist shall regularly monitor the nest at a frequency determined appropriate for the surrounding construction activity to confirm there is no adverse effect. Spot-check monitoring frequency would be determined on a nest-by-nest basis, considering the particular construction activity, duration, proximity to the nest, and physical barriers that may screen activity from the nest. 2. If it is determined that construction may cause abandonment of an active nest, the qualified biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around the nest(s), and all project work shall halt within the buffer to avoid disturbance or destruction until a qualified biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. Typically, buffer distances are 100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors; however. the buffers may be shortened if an obstruction, such as a building, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. 3. Modifying nest buffer distances, allowing certain construction activities within the buffer, and/or modifying construction methods in proximity to active nests shall be approved by the qualified biologist and in coordination with the Planning Division. To the extent necessary to remove or relocate an active nest, such removal or relocation shall be coordinated with the Planning Division, and the removal or relocation shall be in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code and other applicable laws. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-11 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 4. Any work that must occur within established no-disturbance buffers around active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If adverse effects in response to project work within the buffer are observed and could compromise the nest, work within the no-disturbance buffer(s) shall halt until the nest occupants have fledged. 5. Any birds that begin nesting within the project area and survey buffers amid construction activities are assumed to be habituated to construction-related or similar noise and disturbance levels. Work may proceed around these active nests subject to Measure c.2 above. * The experience requirements for a “qualified biologist” shall include a minimum of 4 years of academic training and professional experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities, and a minimum of 2 years of experience conducting surveys for each species that may be present within the project area. Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (No Impact) The project site and surrounding area are completely developed, composed entirely of commercial and office buildings that are interspersed with turf areas and landscaping as well as paved parking lots, sidewalks, and surface streets. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. The existing on-site ornamental vegetation is not a sensitive natural community. Colma Creek, located approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site, is concrete lined and has little to no riparian habitat. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts to this feature. The closest areas with potential for sensitive natural communities include the shoreline of San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, approximately 0.2 mile northeast and 0.3 mile northwest of the project site, respectively. The proposed project would have no effect on these areas because of their respective distances from the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact. No mitigation is required. Impact BIO-3: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal areas, etc., through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (No Impact) No federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters are present on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. The nearest federally protected wetlands in proximity to the project site are the riverine habitat located approximately 0.2 mile north of the project site, along the east side of U.S. 101, and the estuarine and marine deep-water habitat located approximately 0.2 mile northeast of the project site, which is associated with San Francisco Bay.15 The project site is separated from these features by dense urban development, including multiple paved roads. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands. No mitigation is required. 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. National Wetland Inventory. October 8. Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Data-Download.html/. Accessed: March 25, 2020. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-12 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Impact BIO-4: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) No wetlands or running waters are present in the vicinity of the project site; therefore, the project would have no impact on the movement of fish species. As discussed above under Impact BIO-1, existing structures and trees on the project site could provide nesting habitat for resident and migratory birds, therefore, the project has the potential to affect a native wildlife nursery site, which would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI-1, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation by ensuring that project activities would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Wildlife corridors are described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space that would otherwise be separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, or natural or man-made obstacles, such as urbanization. Because the project site and surrounding area are developed, it does not connect directly to areas of natural open space. Any common urban-adapted species that currently move through the project site would continue to be able to do so following project construction. Nonetheless, the likelihood exists for trees on the project site to be used by migratory birds because of the site’s location along the Pacific Flyway and proximity to San Bruno Mountain and San Francisco Bay. A potentially significant impact would occur if a substantial number of nesting migratory birds were injured or killed during construction or operation of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI-1, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas would reduce potential impacts on nesting migratory birds covered under the California Fish and Game Code and MBTA to less than significant with mitigation by ensuring that project activities would not affect nesting migratory birds. Operation of the proposed project would include the use of new lighting and a new 148-foot-tall, seven-story building with potentially reflective surfaces. The new lighting and new surfaces could misdirect or confuse migratory birds, resulting in disruption of natural behavioral patterns and possible injury or death from exhaustion or collisions with buildings, which would be a significant impact. The potential for these types of impacts could be heightened because of the project site’s proximity to San Bruno Mountain and San Francisco Bay. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI-3, Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts on Birds, and BI-4b, Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk would reduce impacts on the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species to less than significant with mitigation by ensuring that project activities would not affect migratory birds. Mitigation Measure BI-2: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts on Birds During design, the project sponsor shall ensure that a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues shall identify lighting-related measures to minimize the effects of the building’s lighting on birds. The project sponsor shall incorporate such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, into the building’s design and operation. a. Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for obstruction lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than continuous light, red light, or rotating beams. b. Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light towards the ground. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-13 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 c. Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not required for public safety. d. When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the buildings shall examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-wide lighting, which may include installing motion-sensitive lighting, using desk lamps and task lighting, reprogramming timers, or using lower-intensity lighting. e. Windows or window treatments that reduce transmission of light out of the building shall be implemented to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure BI-3: Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk During design, the project sponsor shall ensure that a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues shall identify measures related to the external appearance of the building to minimize the risk of bird strikes. The project sponsor shall incorporate such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, into the building’s design. a. Minimize the extent of glazing. b. Use low-reflective glass and/or patterned or fritted glass. c. Use window films, mullions, blinds, or other internal or external features to “break up” reflective surfaces rather than having large, uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and thus to a bird may not appear noticeably different from, vegetation or the sky. Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than Significant) Local policies and ordinaces for protecting biological resources include the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 13.30) in the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. A tree inventory and assessment of the project site was performed by Arborwell in January 2020. A total of 227 trees were documented on the project site, 35 of which are protected under this ordinance. The proposed project would require the removal of 175 trees on the project site, including four protected trees. The project sponsor would be required to abide by all conditions specified in the City Municipal Code which requires that the project sponsor obtain permits to remove protected trees and to compensate for their removal by planting replacement trees of certain sizes and species as specified in the City Municipal Code and by the Parks and Recreation director. Therefore, the project would comply with local policies and ordinances for protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, ensuring that project activities would not result in an unauthorized impact on a protected tree. This impact would be less than significant. Impact BIO-6: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact) The project site is not part of an existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan or any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat. No mitigation is required. City of South San Francisco Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Biological Resources 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.3-14 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 4.3.4.4 Cumulative Impacts Impact C-BIO-1: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed project would not modify any natural habitat and would have no impact on sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat; protected wetlands; the movement of native resident or migratory fish species; or an approved conservation plan. The cumulative geographic context for biological resources is the immediate vicinity of the project site, which is the area where construction activities, including tree removal, could affect biological resources including nesting special-status and migratory bird species, and protected trees that may be present on or near the site. The cumulative projects located within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1. Similar to the project site, the majority of the sites for cumulative projects contain development with ornamental landscaping and ruderal vegetation; therefore, habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special- status species is marginal. Most of the future projects would involve primarily the construction of new buildings or modifications to existing buildings or infrastructure, and associated tree removals. Therefore, as with the proposed project, such development could have an impact on nesting special- status and migratory bird species, the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and local policies or ordinances for protecting biological resources. Cumulative impacts on these biological resources could be significant because reasonably foreseeable projects would affect or remove additional structures and trees and erect new structures. Structures and trees provide roosting and nesting habitat for special-status and migratory birds and act as potential nursery sites; new structures could affect the movement of species. However, these future projects would also be subject to the requirements of the wildlife protection laws, including CESA, MBTA, and the California Fish and Game Code, as well as wildlife protection policies and provisions in the City General Plan and the City Municipal Code, Chapter 13.30. Nonetheless, cumulative impacts on these biological resources would be significant because reasonably foreseeable projects could affect or remove a substantial number of structures and trees and erect new structures. The project would remove 175 trees on the project site and construct a new 148-foot-tall, seven-story building. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI-1, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas; Mitigation Measure BI-2, Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts on Birds; and Mitigation Measure BI-3, Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk, would require pre-construction surveys for nesting birds, and building design measures to minimize lighting effects on birds and bird strike risk. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on nesting special-status and migratory bird species, the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and local policies or ordinances for protecting biological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.