The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 126-2022 (22-561)1 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Responses to Public Comments The Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study (SCEA IS) for the 40 Airport Blvd Project was circulated for public review from May 2 to May 31, 2022. A total of three comment letters were received during the comment period, two of which were submitted by public agencies. Responses to each of the comment letters are provided below. It should be noted that the CEQA Guidelines do not require the City to prepare official responses to public comments received on the SCEA IS; the following responses are provided for informational purposes only. Agencies California Department of Fish and Wildlife – May 17, 2022 The letter provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) indicates that CDFW Headquarters does not need to receive CEQA notices, and specifically states that the letter is not intended to be a comment letter on any individual project. Department of Toxic Substances Control – May 31, 2022 The comment letter provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides a clarification related to the separate components of the Cortese List. As stated on page 161 of the SCEA IS, the project site is not located on DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, which is a component of the Cortese List. In addition, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the proposed project and reviewed during preparation of the SCEA IS included a review of regulatory agency records and a mapped database records search.1 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment confirms that the project site is not located on any of the other components of the Cortese List (i.e., the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database, the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders [CDO] and Cleanup and Abatement Orders [CAO] from the Water Board). Thus, 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, and the conclusion presented in the SCEA IS remains accurate. Groups San Francisco International Airport – May 26, 2022 The comment letter concurs with the SCEA IS in that that the project site is located outside of the San Francisco International Airport’s 65 decibel contour, and the proposed project would not be inconsistent with any applicable noise and safety policies adopted in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. In addition, the comment letter notes that the proposed project remains subject to review by the Federal Aviation Administration. The comment letter does not identify any inadequacies in the SCEA IS. 1 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard [pg 9-15]. December 20, 2017. City of South San Francisco Planning Division 40 Airport Blvd Project SCEA Initial Study FINAL JUNE 2022 Prepared by 1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page i May 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................ 1 B. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY . 2 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3 D. CEQA STREAMLINING ................................................................................................ 19 E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 26 F. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................... 27 G. DETERMINATION......................................................................................................... 28 I. AIR QUALITY. ................................................................................................... 96 II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ........................................................................... 118 III. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ............................................................................. 124 IV. ENERGY. ........................................................................................................ 129 V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .................................................................................. 134 VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ................................................................. 143 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. .................................................. 156 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ........................................................... 164 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. .......................................................................... 173 X. NOISE. ............................................................................................................ 176 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. ........................................................................................ 191 XII. RECREATION. ................................................................................................ 197 XIII. TRANSPORTATION. ....................................................................................... 199 XIV. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................ 215 XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ............................................................ 219 XVI. WILDFIRE. ....................................................................................................... 230 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ............................................... 232 H. SOURCES .................................................................................................................. 234 APPENDICES: Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Results Appendix C: Arborist Report Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix E: CAP Development Review Checklist Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix G: Technical Noise Study Appendix H: Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix I: Transportation Demand Management Plan 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 1 May 2022 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 (PRC). PROJECT TITLE: 40 Airport Blvd Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 Airport Blvd Project (proposed project) would involve demolition of the existing on-site building and redevelopment of the project site with one eight- story building containing 292 multi-family residential units. The proposed building would include 308 parking stalls on two levels of podium parking, approximately 17,566 square feet (sf) of amenity space, and associated improvements. Landscaping improvements would be provided throughout the project site, including new trees and shrubs along the Airport Boulevard frontage, within the fourth-floor courtyard, and throughout the rooftop terrace. In addition, 15 percent of the units would be made available below market rate (5 percent to very-low-income households and 10 percent to low-income households). PROJECT LOCATION: The project site consists of an approximately 1.63-acre parcel located at 40 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-126-010) 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 PRC Section 21155(b); 3) the project is a residential or mixed-use project as defined by PRC 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 a SCEA as authorized pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2(b). 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, 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 2 May 2022 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 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: ______________________________ B. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY Project Title: 40 Airport Blvd Project Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Lead Agency Contact: Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner (650) 877-8535 Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net Project Location: The project site consists of an approximately 1.63-acre parcel located at 40 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-126-010) in the City of South San Francisco, California. Project Applicant: Blake Griggs Properties, LLC 550 Hartz Avenue, Suite 220 Danville, CA 94526 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 3 May 2022 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following provides a description of the 40 Airport Blvd 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 1.63-acre project site is located at 40 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-126-010) in the City of South San Francisco, California (see Figure 1). The site is bound by Caltrain railroad tracks to the north, a restaurant to the south, a hotel and US 101 to the east, and Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue, commercial businesses, and industrial businesses to the west (see Figure 2). The entire site is located within 0.5-mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The City of South San Francisco General Plan designates the site as Business Commercial (BC) and the site is zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). The project site is located within the boundaries of the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), which designates the site as Business Commercial (BC). The project site is currently developed with an approximately 35,000-sf two-story commercial building, which is used as an office, storage, and assembly facility for a produce distribution company. The existing development also includes a paved parking area. Project Components The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing building and subsequent redevelopment of the project site with one eight-story apartment building with 292 multi-family residential units. In addition, the proposed building would include 308 parking stalls on two levels of podium parking, approximately 17,566 sf of amenity space, and associated improvements. Refer to Figure 3 for a computer rendering of the completed project. The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Site Plan – Design Review. The requested entitlements for the project are discussed in the following sections. General Plan Land Use Map Amendment The adopted General Plan designates the project site as BC. In order to accommodate the proposed project, the applicant has proposed a General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to redesignate the project site from BC to Downtown Transit Core (DTC).1 Pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element, the DTC allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre, and 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 project density is 179.1 dwelling units per acre (292 units on 1.63 acre). 1 The City of South San Francisco recently adopted a text amendment to the General Plan as part of a separate development project (124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project). The text amendment added 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 4 May 2022 Figure 1 Regional Project Location Project Location 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 5 May 2022 Figure 2 Project Site Project Site Restaurant Hotel Industrial Businesses Car Rental Agency Car Rental Agency Commercial Businesses Office Buildings (Planned Residential) Industrial Businesses 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 6 May 2022 Figure 3 Completed Project Perspective 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 7 May 2022 The project, and proposed General Plan Amendment, would also be consistent with the Preferred Land Use Alternative endorsed by the South San Francisco City Council in November 2020, in connection with the City’s ongoing 2040 General Plan update process. Under the Preferred Land Use Alternative, the project site would be designated Urban Residential.2 The Urban Residential land use designation is intended to provide higher-density (up to 180 dwelling units per acre) residential areas with a variety of multi-family housing choices. Specific Plan Amendment The project site is located within the DSASP, and is designated BC therein. As part of the project, a Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to amend the DSASP Land Use Plan to remove the project site from the Specific Plan. Doing so allows the proposed project to propose new residential development, without using development capacity within the DSASP. Zoning Map Amendment The project site is currently zoned FC, which does not allow residential uses, and would require a Zoning Map Amendment to accommodate the proposed project. 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 Chapter 20.140 of the Municipal Code. Thus, the project includes a request to rezone the site from FC to PD. The PD zoning would incorporate certain land uses and development standards from the existing DTC zoning district, including multi-family residential at a maximum density of up to 180 units per acre (subject to meeting specified criteria). The DTC zoning district is appropriate given the similarly sized projects in the vicinity. The PD zoning could also incorporate land uses allowed by the existing FC zoning district that the property owners want to retain. Transportation Demand Management Plan The project would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan intended to help alleviate congestion on local roadways. A TDM Plan has been prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (see Appendix I). The TDM measures for the project were developed consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s 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 Plan is subject to review and approval by the City. Site Plan – Design Review Following demolition of the existing on-site structure, the proposed project would involve construction of an approximately 332,726-sf building consisting of 292 multi-family residential units distributed throughout eight levels, 15 percent of which will be made available below market rate (5 percent to very-low-income households and 10 percent to low-income households). The units would range in size from 383- to 1,106-sf, and would consist of 89 one-bedroom units, 122 two-bedroom units, 59 three-bedroom units, and 22 four-bedroom units. Table 1 shows the proposed unit breakdown for each floor of the building. In addition, the building would include 308 parking stalls on two levels of podium parking. The two levels of podium parking would have a higher clearance than the indoor floors and, thus, comprise the first three floors of the proposed 2 City of South San Francisco. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan: Preferred Alternative. October 2020. Available at: https://shapessf.com/preferredalternative/. Accessed January 4, 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 8 May 2022 building. Garage access would be provided from Airport Boulevard via a private access road along the southern and eastern borders of the site, which is shared by the proposed building and the existing adjacent hotel. Refer to Figure 4 for the Preliminary Site Plan. Table 1 Proposed Unit Mix Unit Type Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Floor 5 Floor 6 Floor 7 Floor 8 Total 1 Bedroom 6 6 7 14 14 14 14 14 89 2 Bedroom 4 4 5 21 22 22 22 22 122 3 Bedroom 3 4 4 9 10 10 10 9 59 4 Bedroom 0 2 3 4 4 4 4 1 22 Total Units 13 16 19 48 50 50 50 46 292 The proposed building would also include approximately 17,566 sf of amenity space consisting of a 2,400-sf resident café (resident use only), 2,250-sf community room, 1,600-sf leasing office, dog run and dog spa on the first level; bicycle storage on the second level; storage units on the second and third levels; a podium deck/courtyard and fitness center on the fourth level; and a club room and roof deck on the eighth floor. Approximately half of the proposed units would include a private outdoor balcony, for a total of 140 decks and 6,720 sf of deck area. The maximum height of the proposed building would be approximately 95 feet to the top parapet, and 85 feet to roof sheathing (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). 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 Number of Spaces Open/Surface Parking Stalls 4 (1) Standard Garage Parking Stalls 77 (8) Automated Parking Stalls* 227 Short Term Bike Parking 31 Long Term Bike Parking 104 * Automated parking stalls refer to individual spaces in an automatic parking system, which are structures where cars are stacked vertically to reduce parking space. The automatic parking system transports vehicles from the entrance to the parking space without the driver. ( ) Values presented in parenthesis represent the number of spaces that would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant. The City of South San Francisco requires a minimum of one parking space per residential unit. The proposed project would exceed the City’s parking requirement by providing a total of 308 vehicle parking spaces, resulting in a ratio of 1.05 spaces per unit. Due to the availability of transit options and bicycle facilities near the project site, 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 proposed project would include 31 short-term bicycle parking spaces, which meets the City requirement for the project. The project would include a total of 104 long-term bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the City’s Code requirement for the project of 73 spaces. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 9 May 2022 Figure 4 Site Plan 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 10 May 2022 Figure 5 South and West Exterior Elevations 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 11 May 2022 Figure 6 North and East Exterior Elevations 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 12 May 2022 Landscaping The proposed project would provide landscaping improvements throughout the project site, including new trees and shrubs along the Airport Boulevard frontage, within the fourth floor courtyard, and throughout the rooftop terrace (see Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). The fourth floor courtyard would include several recreational facilities, including: a multi-purpose lawn, outdoor fitness area, a fire pit and lounge, and a general outdoor common area with a kitchen, bar, and dining table. Vegetative screening would be planted along the eastern site boundary to shield views of the parking garage entry from the existing hotel. A dog run is proposed on the ground floor at the northern boundary of the project site as part of the landscaping plan, and would include synthetic turf, perimeter fencing, and seating areas. 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). All planted areas would include a minimum of three inches of mulch, would be watered with an automated underground irrigated system, and would be organized according to irrigation hydrozones. Utilities and Service Systems The following section describes sewer, stormwater, and water service at the project site. The Utility Plan is included as Figure 10. Sewer The City of South San Francisco owns and maintains the sanitary sewer system adjacent to the project site. The project would connect via a new six-inch sewer lateral to the existing sanitary sewer line that extends within Airport Boulevard. In addition, as part of the project, 230 lineal feet of sewer pipeline within Airport Boulevard would be upsized in order to accommodate the increased flows. Water The potable water distribution system in the project area is owned and operated by the California Water Service Company. Water mains currently exist in the north side of Airport Boulevard. The proposed building would connect to a four-inch domestic water line for residential use, a two-inch water line for commercial use, a two-inch water line for irrigation, and an eight-inch water line for fire protection. Two existing fire hydrants in the eastern portion of the site would remain. Based on preliminary fire flow calculations, the fire flow per construction type would be 5,750 gallons per minute (gpm). The City allows a 50 percent reduction with an approved fire sprinkler system and, therefore, the required fire flow for the proposed building is 2,875 gpm. Stormwater The City of South San Francisco also owns and maintains the existing storm drain system adjacent to the site, in Airport Boulevard. The proposed project would treat stormwater from the project site using a combination of self-retaining/self-treating areas, bioretention, and media filters (see Figure 11). The project site is divided into eight drainage management areas (DMAs), and stormwater from each DMA would be directed towards the identified treatment measure with eventual discharge to the City’s storm drain line in Airport Boulevard. DMA 1 includes a dog run that is self-retaining/self-treating. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 13 May 2022 Figure 7 Landscaping Plan – Ground Floor 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 14 May 2022 Figure 8 Landscaping Plan – Fourth Floor Courtyard 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 15 May 2022 Figure 9 Rooftop Terrace Amenities 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 16 May 2022 Figure 10 Utility Plan 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 17 May 2022 Figure 11 Preliminary Stormwater Plan 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 18 May 2022 DMA 6 consists of landscaping along the rear of the building and is also self-retaining. DMAs 2 through 5 and 7 and 8, generally consisting of roof or concrete surfaces, would direct runoff towards separate bioretention areas or flow-through planters. Additionally, as part of the project, a new eight-inch stormwater line would collect stormwater from DMA 4 and direct it towards a new PerkFilterTM media filtration vault and ultimately into the City’s stormwater system. 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 site is classified as a Category C Special Project (transit-oriented development) and qualifies for a 75 percent LID treatment reduction. 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.3 Site Access Access to the project site would be provided from Airport Boulevard by the shared privately- owned driveway/access road which extends along the eastern and southeastern site boundaries. The majority of the shared driveway (approximately 17,190 sf) would be repaved as part of the proposed project, a portion of which would be surfaced with pavers. Entrance to the parking garage would be accommodated by a 25.5-foot-wide entrance at the eastern side of the building. The shared driveway would be adequately sized for emergency vehicle access, and the eastern corner of the project site could be used as a staging area in the case of emergency. The project would also include construction of a new curb, gutter, and ten-foot-wide sidewalk along the Airport Boulevard frontage. The sidewalk would connect to the existing pedestrian network along Airport Boulevard. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the proposed project would require City approval of the following entitlements: • General Plan Amendment • Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment • Zoning Map Amendment • Transportation Demand Management Plan • 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 and orientation; 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 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. 3 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2 [Page H-3]. January 4, 2013. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 19 May 2022 Additionally, the City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County, in its capacity as Airport Land Use Commission, will need to make certain compatibility findings regarding the project as it relates to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. 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 a sustainable communities strategy (see PRC Sections 21155 et seq.). For the project region, the applicable regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy is Plan Bay Area 2040 (hereafter referred to as “Plan Bay Area”), adopted by ABAG on July 26, 2017.4 It is noted that the update to the Plan Bay Area, Plan Bay Area 2050, was adopted by ABAG in October of 2021. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21155(a), a transit priority project must be, “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, for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.” Plan Bay Area 2050 has not yet been accepted by the State Air Resources Board, and is anticipated to be adopted in late spring/summer 2022.5 As a result, Plan Bay Area 2040 remains the appropriate document for CEQA streamlining based on PRC criteria. Transit Priority Project Under section 21155(a), to receive streamlining benefits, 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 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 this section, 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 4 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). 5 Szeto, Lezlie Kimura, Manager, Sustainable Transportation & Communities Division, California Air Resources Board. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management. February 7, 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 20 May 2022 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 292 multi-family units. Total residential building square footage is 205,024 square feet, with an additional 17,566 square feet for leasing/amenities, 44,813 square feet for circulation, and 64,686 square feet for parking. The floor area ratio for the proposed building is 4.7. Therefore, the project meets Criterion 1. With respect to Criterion 2, the project provides a net density of 179.1 dwelling units per acre (292 units/1.63 acres). Therefore, the project meets Criterion 2. With respect to Criterion 3, the project site is located within one-half (0.5) mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station in both its existing and new locations (see Figure 12). The Caltrain station, in both locations, is considered to be a major transit stop by the MTC/ABAG.6 The Caltrain Station, in its existing and new location, meets the major transit stop criteria of PRC Section 21064.3 because the stops are considered rail transit stations.7 The new Caltrain station, known as the South San Francisco Caltrain Improvement Project, is nearly complete. 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. Because the project meets all three criteria of Section 21155(b), it qualifies as a transit priority project. Sustainable Communities Strategy 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. Here, Plan Bay Area 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.8 PDAs and TPAs (which may overlap) 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. 6 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. 7 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. 8 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 21 May 2022 Figure 12 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. Accessed March 2021. Project Site 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 22 May 2022 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. Because the project site is located within a TPA that is part of the land use growth footprint for Plan Bay Area (refer to Figure 12), the project is consistent with the land use and development growth assumptions within the Plan. The project is also consistent with the other applicable policies in Plan Bay Area, as demonstrated in Table 3. It should be noted that Plan Bay Area 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. Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Because the project is a transit priority project and is consistent with the Plan Bay Area, it qualifies for CEQA streamlining. The available streamlining benefits include, but are not limited to: 1. Review through a SCEA. (PRC, § 21155.2) 2. For a residential or mixed-use project, such as the proposed project: a. 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]) b. Alternative locations, densities, and building intensities to the proposed project need not be considered. (PRC, § 21159.28, subd. [b]) c. 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 Senate Bill (SB) 375 as being Transit Priority Projects. Pursuant to PRC § 21099, subd. (d)(1) and PRC § 21159.28, subd. (a), Transit Priority Projects are not required to discuss the following environmental impact areas: • Aesthetics and parking; • 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. In addition, the below environmental impact areas represent those that can be dismissed based on the project’s urban infill location or other relevant factors. 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 23 May 2022 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. Population and Housing The CEQA checklist questions under Population and Housing address whether the project would: 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. Item ‘b’ is related to the displacement of people or housing. The project site is currently developed with a two-story commercial warehouse building, and implementation of the project would involve the demolition of the on-site building. However, considering that the on-site building is not used as a residence, demolition of the building 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 above, the proposed project is consistent with the general land use and development assumptions within the 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. Table 3 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area Action Items 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 15 percent of units as affordable and/or 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 This action focuses on developing statewide affordable housing strategies, which is beyond the scope of this project. The proposed project would result in the production of 292 units of new housing, 15 percent of which would be (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 24 May 2022 Table 3 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area Action Items Consistency Discussion 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. below market rate. In addition, because the project includes units with a mix of studios, one, two, three and four bedrooms, the project would provide workforce housing. 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. Evaluating expanded policies related to transportation funding and housing production is beyond the scope of this project. It is noted that the proposed project would include the development of new housing, with 15 percent of the units designated as affordable, within close proximity to major transit assets (i.e., the South San Francisco Caltrain station). The project site is not public land and therefore developing a strategy for the use of public land proximate to major transit assets to facilitate the development of affordable housing is not directly applicable, and beyond the scope of this project. 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. Because the site is located within a TPA, the project site is located within an opportunity area for development. The redevelopment of the project site from low-intensity commercial 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 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. This action focuses on developing regional affordable housing strategies, which is beyond the scope of this project. Nonetheless, 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. (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 25 May 2022 Table 3 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area Action Items Consistency Discussion Economic Development Actions Action Items Consistency Discussion 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. This action item is focused on regional economic solutions, which are beyond the scope of this project. Because the proposed project would involve the demolition of the existing on-site commercial building, the project may result in a short-term adverse effect related to economic development in the immediate vicinity. However, by developing housing in a TPA that includes a mix of unit sizes, 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 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. This action item is focused on regional growth criteria and incentives, which is beyond the scope of this project. Nonetheless, 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. Resilience Actions Action Items Consistency Discussion 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, This action item is regionally focused and, therefore, beyond the scope of this project. Nonetheless, the proposed project would (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 26 May 2022 Table 3 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area Action Items Consistency Discussion 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. 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 regionally 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. 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 27 May 2022 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), as noted previously under Section D, CEQA Streamlining. 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. A 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. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 Be zero emissions OR 2) have engines that The proposed project would exceed the construction 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. 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 and will be incorporated into the project. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 • 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. 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 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. Project-specific Mitigation Measure I-1 below represents the modified mitigation measure. I-1 Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the project applicant shall demonstrate LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 projects located in the West Oakland Specific Plan area)9 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% 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 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 16 or higher, except the units that are located within or partially within the TAC Risk Area presented in Figure 13 shall install, operate and maintain HVAC systems that meet or exceed a minimum MERV of 16 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, 9 Note: Reference to “West Oakland Specific Plan” is from the adopted Mitigation Measure language. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 Refrigeration, and Air- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) certified 85 percent supply filters shall be used. • Maintain, repair and/or replace 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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. 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 • 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). generators shall meet CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards. Based on the project-specific analysis in this SCEA, the following additional measures are required: 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. I-3 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk Assessors to complete and submit for review to the City’s 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 Division an asbestos and lead survey. If asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials are not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to asbestos-containing materials or lead containing materials shall not be required. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a work plan to demonstrate how the on-site asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with current California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Administration regulations and disposed of in accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior to the demolition and/or removal of the on-site structures. The plan shall include the requirement that work shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding asbestos and lead training, engineering controls, and certifications. The applicant shall 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 submit the work 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 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 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 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. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 shall 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. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect NI None None applicable based on the project- specific analysis conducted in this SCEA. None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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. 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 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? LTS None None None N/A f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation NI None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? III. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to LTS None 2.11-1. 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: • Realign or redesign projects to avoid impacts on known historic resources where possible. • Require a survey and evaluation of structures greater than 45 years in age within the area of potential effect to determine their eligibility for recognition under State, federal, or local historic preservation criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared by an architectural historian, or historical architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1, the Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report evaluates structures throughout the City for historical significance, and did not identify the on-site structure as a historically significant resource. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the first item in Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11- 1, wherein the project would avoid impacts to identified historic resources, and the second item, wherein structures greater than 45 years in age must be evaluated for historical significance. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 has already been implemented. No further mitigation is required. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 Section 15064.5? c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards. The evaluation should comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b), and, if federal funding or permits are required, with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.). Study recommendations shall be implemented. • If avoidance of a significant architectural/built environment resource is not feasible, additional mitigation options include, but are not limited to, specific design plans for historic districts, or plans for alteration or adaptive re-use of a historical resource that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. • Comply with existing local regulations and policies that 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect historic resources. 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 a Worker Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11- 2 is applicable to the proposed project and will be implemented. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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. IV. ENERGY a. Would the project result in potentially LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 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: LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 Geology Special Publication 42. aii. Strong seismic ground shaking? a.iii Would the project directly or indirectly S None None V-1. Prior to approval of construction permits, the applicant shall retain a qualified geologist to prepare a site- LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? 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. a.iv Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? 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 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? S None None As discussed in further detail in Section V, Geology and Soils, of this SCEA IS, a portion of the project site includes soils that are potentially liquefiable, and settlement could occur if the proposed building is not appropriately designed. Therefore, 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 potential impact to a less-than-significant level. LTS d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 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 destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? LTS None 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 As described in further detail in Section V, Geology and Soils, of this SCEA, a records search of the UC Berkeley Museum of 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. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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; o recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil- 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? LTS None None applicable based on the project- specific analysis conducted in this SCEA. None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable S None None Based on the analysis included in this SCEA IS, construction and demolition activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in the accidental release of NOA, ACM, and/or LBP. However, implementation of project specific Mitigation Measure VII-1, which requires implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3, would LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. VII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3. 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 materials sites compiled pursuant to Government 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: • If the project is located on or near a hazardous material and/or waste site pursuant to Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.13-4, a Phase I ESA was prepared for the proposed project. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site is not located on or near a hazardous material and/or waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Due to the age of the existing structure, the potential exists that residual hazardous materials (i.e., NOA, ACMs, or LBP) exist NI 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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. on-site due to the prior use at the project site. However, implementation of project- specific Mitigation Measure VII-1 would reduce any related impacts to a less-than- significant level. 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 plan or, where such a plan has not been LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 involving wildland fires? LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 would impede or 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. According to Appendix B, Asset Exposure Maps, of the County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, the project site is located just outside of the projected High Scenario Sea Level Rise (SLR) boundaries. The High scenario shows the possible extent of flooding during a 1 percent chance annual storm plus 6.6 feet of sea level rise and is considered a NI 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 redirect flood flows? worst-case scenario in the Vulnerability Assessment. As a result, adaptation strategy or strategies to reduce the impacts of sea level rise are not required for the proposed project. Thus, this SCEA demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c). 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? 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 LTS None None applicable based on the project- specific analysis conducted in this SCEA. None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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); • 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, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6- 1(a) is applicable to the proposed project and will be implemented. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 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 Although not required by CEQA, consistent with the Plan Bay Area EIR, the applicant shall prepare a site-specific noise study to evaluate noise exposure at new receptors and recommend appropriate measures to reduce such noise exposure. The City shall review and approve the transportation noise study prior to issuance of building permits. The noise study shall comply with the requirements of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-2, 2.6-3(a), 2.6- 3(b), and 2.6-4(a). 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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; 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 • 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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, 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 Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6- 5 is applicable to the proposed project, and will be implemented. Refer to Section X, Noise, of this SCEA for additional information. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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. Equipment enclosures shall be oriented so that major openings (i.e., intake louvers, exhaust) are directed away from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LTS None None None N/A 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 Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6- 6 is applicable to the proposed project and will be implemented. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 potential for sleep disturbance is minimized. 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? d. Parks? 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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. Other Public Facilities? share portion of the required services pursuant to adopted fee programs and State law. 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 applicable based on the project- specific analysis conducted in this SCEA. 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: Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b), a TDM Plan has been prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (see Appendix I). The proposed TDM includes measures that would incentivize alternative travel and reduce VMT, including, but not limited to, the following: unbundled parking, bike repair stations, carpool and vanpool incentives, public bike and scooter share programs, rideshare matching events, etc. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b) has already been implemented, and no further mitigation is required. The City will require implementation of the TDM through project conditions of approval. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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: Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1- 7 is applicable to the proposed project and will be implemented. In addition, based on the project-specific analysis in this SCEA, the following additional measure is required: XIII-1. Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the project driveway and easement road shall be resized to an appropriate design vehicle (WB-40 trailer truck or smaller) with the intent of reducing the driveway and easement road widths, in consultation with City staff and LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 • 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 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; City resources such as the City’s Complete Street Ordinance and the Downtown Plan. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 • 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. d. Would the project result in LTS None None applicable based on the project- specific analysis conducted in this SCEA. None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 inadequate emergency access? XV. 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: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical 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 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 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 Tribes have requested consultation or provided comments to Staff regarding the project. 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). LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 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. • 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 Native American tribe. 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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  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 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 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 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. It is noted that, prior to project construction, the wastewater main in Airport Boulevard would be upsized to adequately accommodate flows generated by the proposed project. This improvement would be required as a project condition of approval. Therefore, this SCEA demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 telecommunicati ons facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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. Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-3(a) and 2.12-4. Refer to Section XVI, Utilities and Service Systems, of this SCEA for additional information. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 • 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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. 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 for additional information. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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. 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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. 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 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 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 for additional information. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 existing commitments? 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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? e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 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 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 Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12- 5 is applicable to the proposed project and will be implemented. LTS 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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). 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 LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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? 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 LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 May 2022 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 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 LTS None None None N/A 40 Airport Blvd 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 94 May 2022 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 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? 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 95 May 2022 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” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 96 May 2022 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 MTC and 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 PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 4. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 97 May 2022 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 PM10 (exhaust) 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 400 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 in this SCEA IS. Nonetheless, the following General Plan policies still apply to all new development projects throughout the City: 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 98 May 2022 • 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. 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, growth under the Plan Bay Area would result in a less-than-significant impact. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that implementation of 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 99 May 2022 the Plan 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 the exposure criteria, 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. 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 100 May 2022 Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 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 and will be required: 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 101 May 2022 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 102 May 2022 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). 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 103 May 2022 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 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 March of 2023, and occur over approximately 2.5 years; • During site preparation and grading, 3,158 cubic yards (CY) of soil material would be exported from the site; • Demolition would involve removal of 54,007-sf of material; • The project trip generation rate was set to 4.00 daily vehicle trips per unit, based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project;10 • Only natural gas hearths would be installed; • 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. 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. 10 Fehr and Peers. 40 Airport Blvd Transportation Impact Analysis. April 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 104 May 2022 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 11.28 54 NO NOX 19.75 54 NO PM10 (exhaust) 0.85 82 NO PM10 (fugitive) 7.26 None N/A PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.79 54 NO PM2.5 (fugitive) 3.47 None N/A Source: CalEEMod, April 2022 (see Appendix A, pages 95 and 130). 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. 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 105 May 2022 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 9.89 1.66 54 10 NO NOX 8.56 1.20 54 10 NO PM10 (exhaust) 0.37 0.03 82 15 NO PM10 (fugitive) 5.17 0.91 None None N/A PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.37 0.03 54 10 NO PM2.5 (fugitive) 1.38 0.24 None None N/A Source: CalEEMod, April 2022 (see Appendix A, pages 58, 97, and 132). 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.11 If a project 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. 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 2-1]. May 2017. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 106 May 2022 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, 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 a requirement 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 project site is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. The nearest existing sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located approximately 400 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 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; 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 107 May 2022 • 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).12 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 growth projections included in Plan Bay Area, which provides the framework for what the Bay Area transportation network should look like in 2040.13 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 XIII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 742 daily trips, including 49 AM peak hour trips and 51 PM peak hour trips. Based on Figure C-1, Existing Traffic Volumes, of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for a separate nearby project, traffic volumes at the Airport Boulevard/Project Avenue/San Mateo Avenue/South Airport Boulevard intersection currently range between 2,640 and 3,400 trips per peak hour.14 Therefore, the addition of 49 AM peak hour and 51 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. The same conclusion would apply to other affected intersections in the project area. 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.15 The CARB has identified 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. The proposed residential building would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. Short-term, construction-related 12 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2019. April 9, 2020. 13 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2019 [pg 1]. April 9, 2020. 14 Fehr and Peers. 124 Airport/100 Product Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 30, 2020. 15 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 108 May 2022 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 2.5 years. Therefore, existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would not be exposed to construction-related emissions for an extended period of time and, accordingly, health risks are not anticipated. 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 approximately 400 feet northwest of the site. DPM is highly dispersive in nature, and the concentration of DPM at the nearest sensitive receptor would be substantially reduced as compared to the concentration of DPM at the source. Furthermore, the prevailing wind direction in South San Francisco is from the west,16 which would direct any DPM emissions towards the east, away from the nearest sensitive receptors. 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.17 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 compared to impacts of a project on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review.18 While not a CEQA 16 Weather Spark. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in South San Francisco California, United States. Available at: https://weatherspark.com/y/568/Average-Weather-in-South-San-Francisco-California-United-States- Year-Round. Accessed January 4, 2022. 17 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective [pg 2]. April 2005. 18 “[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; 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 109 May 2022 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.19 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:20 • 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. A 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) existing stationary sources (i.e., emergency generators, gas- dispensing facilities); 2) operations along the railway 21,22 (located approximately 65 feet northwest of the project site); 3) vehicle traffic along US 101 (located approximately 250 feet east of the project site); 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:23 • 149 South Linden Avenue; • 1479 San Mateo Avenue; • 206 Baden Avenue; • 303 Commercial Avenue; • 27 South Linden Avenue; • 99 Linden Avenue; 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, 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. 19 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 May 2021. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 2-2]. May 2017. 21 It is noted that a separate freight train rail spur, not used by Caltrain, extends immediately north of the project site. Although the spur is considered active, the railway only serves one customer (Pacific Agri-Products) and is, therefore, assumed to be used intermittently, as demand requires. 22 Personal Communication. Francisco J Castillo, Senior Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific and Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management [email]. June 28, 2021. 23 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 May 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 110 May 2022 • 201 Gateway Boulevard; • 221 Airport Boulevard; • 35 South Linden Avenue; • 177 South Airport Boulevard; and • 140 Produce Avenue. The cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and concentration of PM2.5 from each stationary source was provided through consultation with the BAAQMD.24 The BAAQMD’s Health Risk Calculator (Beta 4.0) Distance Multiplier Tool was used to refine and adjust the values for cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and concentration of PM2.5 to represent those that can realistically be expected with farther distances from the source of emissions. With regard to mobile sources of TACs, as part of its Planning Healthy Places initiative, the BAAQMD modeled the concentration of PM2.5 and associated cancer risk resulting from major roadways, highways, and railways, including Caltrain,25 throughout the Bay Area.26 The BAAQMD datasets are ArcMap raster files with cancer risk per million people and concentration of PM2.5 in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The BAAQMD relied on EMFAC2014 data for fleet mix, and used OEHHA’s 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Guidance Methods. Two dispersion models were applied in developing the dataset: the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) and CALINE model. AERMOD was used to disperse unit emissions from on-road mobile sources, and CALINE was applied to disperse unit emissions from railways, including freight, passenger, and commute lines. The exposure period for developing the dataset was 30 years.27 The chronic hazard risk associated with mobile sources of TACs are assumed to be less than one.28 The BAAQMD’s data was used to determine that areas in the project vicinity where the cumulative cancer risk and concentration of PM2.5 from all major sources of TACs would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance. The results of the cancer risk analysis are visually presented in Figure 13. 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. However, only the northwestern portion of the proposed building includes areas that exceed the threshold without mitigation. The remainder of the proposed project would be exposed to a less-than- significant cumulative cancer risk level. The maximum cumulative cancer risk at the anticipated maximally exposed receptor, represented by a white outline in Figure 13, would be 130.25 cases per million persons (see Table 7). 24 Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. May 12, 2021. 25 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. 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. May 2016. 27 Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. January 12, 2022. 28 Flores, Areana, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [phone], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. April 5, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 111 May 2022 Figure 13 Health Risk Assessment Cancer Risk 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 non-CEQA cumulative threshold of significance. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 112 May 2022 Table 7 Maximum Unmitigated Health Risk Cancer Risk (per million persons) Chronic Hazard Index Concentration of PM2.5 (µg/m3) Mobile Sources 120.26 <1.015 0.44 Stationary Sources 4.50 0.01 0.00 Total 124.76 <1.025 0.44 Thresholds of Significance 100 10.0 0.80 Exceed Thresholds? YES NO NO Sources: June 2021 (see Appendix B). As a result, implementation of the proposed project could result in a cancer risk in excess of the BAAQMD’s non-CEQA standards of significance. Plan Bay EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a) and the 2019 CBSC requires projects to include a minimum MERV 13 filter in the HVAC system for all units, including units located within the TAC risk area. For projects within the West Oakland Specific Plan area, Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a) requires MERV 16 filters. 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.29 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.30 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.31 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 89.83 to 101.06 cases per million, which still has the potential to exceed the applicable threshold of significance. As a result, similar to the requirement for the West Oakland Specific Plan area, the units located within the red area shown in Figure 13 shall be required to include MERV 16 filters. Because MERV 16 filters are able to remove approximately five percent more particles sized 1.0 to 3.0 microns as compared to MERV 13 filters,32 the estimated cancer risk is reasonably anticipated to be reduced to 85.34 to 96.00 cases per million. 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 29 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 May 2021. 30 W.J. Fisk and W. R. Chan. Effectiveness and cost of reducing particle-related mortality with particle filtration. February 1, 2017. 31 M.S. Zuraimi and Zhongchao Tan. Impact of residential building regulations on reducing indoor exposures to outdoor PM2.5 in Toronto. March 14, 2015. 32 Lake Air. MERV Rating Chart. Available at: https://www.lakeair.com/merv-rating-explanation/. Accessed April 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 113 May 2022 • 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. 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 a less-than-significant level. Lead-Based Paint, Asbestos-Containing Building Material, and Naturally Occurring Asbestos 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” (ACM) unless proven otherwise through sampling in accordance with the standards of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. ACMs 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 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the proposed project, the on-site buildings were constructed circa 1950. Therefore, demolition of the buildings could result in emissions of LBP and/or asbestos-containing building materials. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project, the project site is underlain by Franciscan Formation bedrock.33 Based on the bedrock formation’s association with naturally-occurring asbestos (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. 33 GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 114 May 2022 Conclusion Based on the above discussion, construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Although not required to mitigate a significant impact for purposes of CEQA, dwelling units of the project that are within the TAC risk area (38 total units along the northwest corner of the building) will be required to install MERV 16 filters and the project will have features consistent with those listed in Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a). Because of the type of bedrock underlying the project site, and due to the age of the existing buildings, construction activities associated with the proposed project could expose receptors to asbestos-containing dust, asbestos-containing building materials, or LBP. 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-2 and I-3 listed below would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure I-1, adapted from Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a), is required under PRC Section 21155.2 and is not required to reduce an impact identified under CEQA. 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.34 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, existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site are the single-family residences to the 34 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1]. May 2017. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 115 May 2022 northwest, with the closest being approximately 400 feet away. 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 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 the 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, and a less-than-significant impact would result. Project-Specific Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Project-specific Mitigation Measure I-1 is adapted from Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a). 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, except the units that are located within or partially within the TAC Risk Area presented in Figure 13 shall install, operate and maintain HVAC systems that meet or exceed a minimum MERV of 16 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 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. • Individual and common exterior open space and outdoor activity areas proposed as part of individual projects shall be located as far away as 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 116 May 2022 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 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. I-3 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk Assessors to complete and submit for review to the City’s Planning Division an asbestos and lead survey. If asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials are not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials shall not be required. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a work plan to demonstrate how the on-site asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with current California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Administration regulations and disposed of in accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior to the demolition and/or removal of the on-site structures. The plan shall include the requirement that work shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding asbestos and lead training, engineering controls, and certifications. The applicant shall submit the work 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 117 May 2022 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 non-CEQA 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 and/or ACMs and/or LBP during demolition, which could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. The implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3 would ensure that the potential impact related to NOA exposure and ACMs and LBP 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 118 May 2022 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 scrub and chaparral, woodlands and forests, riparian systems, freshwater and saltwater aquatic habitat, and wetlands. The project site is currently developed with a commercial warehouse building and associated paved areas. Foliage on the site is limited to two ornamental trees and sparse volunteer vegetation along the Airport Boulevard frontage. 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. 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; • 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 119 May 2022 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, compliance with the following policies from the General Plan were determined to reduce biological impacts associated with buildout 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. 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 120 May 2022 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 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, individual project’s impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant. 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 Measure 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 individual 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, including implementation of 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 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 individual project’s impacts related to wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 121 May 2022 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 conflicts with adopted local conservation policies, such as tree protection ordinances, or resource protection and conservation plans, such as a Habitat Conservation Plan (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 an existing commercial structure, 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 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 an existing commercial structure 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. Accordingly, riparian habitat, wetlands, or any other sensitive natural community do not exist on the project site. As a result, implementation of 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 122 May 2022 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. 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. Two trees currently exist on-site: a Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia) and Bailey acacia (Acacia baileyana). As part of the proposed project, both on-site trees would be removed. To assess the health and structural condition of the trees within the project site, an Arborist Report was prepared for the proposed project by Traverso Tree Service, Inc. (see Appendix C).35 The tree assessment took place March 4, 2021. 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, neither tree qualifies for protected status. One of the trees is located within the proposed building footprint, and the other tree was determined to be in poor health. Both trees are recommended for removal. However, the Landscaping Plan (see Figure 7 and Figure 8) includes several new trees along the site frontages and throughout the interior courtyard, and would effectively replace the removed trees and contribute additional trees as compared to existing conditions. Based on the above, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. f. The project site is not located within an area that is subject to an adopted HCP, NCCP, 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 HCP, NCCP, 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 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 35 Traverso Tree Service, Inc. Arborist Report for 40 Airport Blvd, South San Francisco. March 25, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 123 May 2022 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 shall 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 use 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 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 124 May 2022 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 Program currently includes 50 designated historic sites, each identified for its historical or cultural significance.36 The project site is located within an urban area and, therefore, existing development surrounds the project site, including roadways and commercial development. The existing warehouse building makes up a total of approximately 35,000 sf, and the remainder of the site area consists of paved parking lots. According to the Phase I ESA, the site was developed with the existing structure by 1956.37 The existing warehouse has not been designated as a historic resource. 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. 36 City of South San Francisco. Historic Preservation. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic- community-development/planning-division/historic-preservation. Accessed April 2021. 37 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 125 May 2022 • 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 Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California PRC 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 Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-1 and 2.11-2 are applicable to the proposed project. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 has already been implemented. 2.11-1 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: • Realign or redesign projects to avoid impacts on known historic resources where possible. • Require a survey and evaluation of structures greater than 45 years in age within the area of potential effect to determine their eligibility for recognition under State, federal, or local historic preservation criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared by an architectural historian, or historical architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards. The evaluation should comply with CEQA Guidelines section 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 126 May 2022 15064.5(b), and, if federal funding or permits are required, with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.). Study recommendations shall be implemented. • If avoidance of a significant architectural/built environment resource is not feasible, additional mitigation options include, but are not limited to, specific design plans for historic districts, or plans for alteration or adaptive re-use of a historical resource that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. • Comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect historic resources. 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 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 127 May 2022 Project-Specific Impact Discussion a. 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.38 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.39 Resources over 50 years of age may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The existing on-site commercial building was constructed circa 1950 40 and, therefore, could be considered a historic building because the building is over 50 years in age. Tenants on the subject property have included a steel machine shop (1950-1970), Tire Jobbers (1970), Bay Carbon Company (1977-1995), Ogden Allied Services Corp. (1987-1995), Sky Chefs (2000-2005), Quong Hop (2005), J.R. Produce (2005), Capital Sigma Investments (2010), and The Produce and United Property (2015- Present). In 2019, as part of its General Plan Update, the City published a Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report. According to the report, approximately 250 eligible historic architectural resources were identified within the City, the majority of which are not included within the City’s register, but were determined to be eligible through environmental reviews. Details on these properties are listed in Table CUL-5 of the Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report, and include residential homes, commercial buildings, medical facilities, fraternal organizations, civic, educational, religious, and transportation infrastructure. Evaluated resources determined to be ineligible for listing have been excluded from Table CUL-5. The project site is not included in Table CUL-5 and, thus, has not been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). In summary, the on-site structure is over 50 years old and, thus, must be evaluated for historical significance in order to comply with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11- 1. Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1, the Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report evaluated structures throughout the City for historical significance, and did not identify the on-site structure as a historically significant resource. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the first item in Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1, wherein the project would avoid impacts to identified historic resources. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 has been fully implemented. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b,c. Considering that the project site has previously been heavily disturbed through development of the existing structures, the potential for encountering any significant cultural 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 38 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. 39 South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999. 40 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 128 May 2022 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 provides standardized protocol for the accidental discovery of cultural resources, and would be applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2 would reduce impacts related to the discovery of unknown archeological resources to a less-than-significant level. The project would also be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052, which address appropriate handling of human remains, and California PRC Section 5097, which addresses appropriate protection of archeological and historical sites. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that a less-than- significant impact related to archaeological resources and/or human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, 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 project would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of California law, including California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California PRC Section 5097. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2, listed above, would reduce potential impacts related to archeological resources to a less-than-significant level. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2 is hereby incorporated requirements of the proposed project. Implementation of the aforementioned Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure would ensure that the project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Cultural Resources. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 129 May 2022 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 a two-story commercial warehouse building 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.41 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. 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’ MWELO 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. 41 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%20joinedinstea d%20of%20going%20through%20PG%26E. Accessed June 10, 2020. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 130 May 2022 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; they 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.42 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 are discussed in Chapter 2.4 of the Plan Bay Area EIR. 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 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 42 California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ. November 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 131 May 2022 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 existing on-site warehouse currently consumes energy during normal operations. Demolition of the existing building would remove the energy demand associated with operation of such. Therefore, energy demand during construction would be somewhat off- set through reductions in energy demand due to the demolition of existing structure. 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 the 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. Finally, technological innovations and more stringent standards are constantly being researched at the global level, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes; incorporation of such technologies 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),43 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. Following implementation of the proposed project, PG&E would provide electricity 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 43 California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 132 May 2022 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. During operations, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Energy Reach Codes, which were adopted through Ordinance 1623-2021 on June 9, 2021, and are defined in Sections 15.26.020 and 15.22.020 of the City’s Municipal Code. The City’s Energy Reach Codes require all newly constructed residential buildings to be “All-Electric Buildings,” defined as buildings that do not have natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building property lines, and instead use only electricity as the source of energy for space heating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. In addition, new construction within the City is required to facilitate future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers. Specific requirements for multi-family developments with more than 20 dwelling units include the installation of one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space in the first 20 dwelling units with parking spaces. For each additional dwelling unit, 25 percent of the dwelling units with parking space(s) are required to have at least one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space. Each remaining dwelling unit with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least one Level 1 Electric Vehicle Ready Space. Furthermore, 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 City’s Energy Reach Code and the most recent CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structure would consume energy efficiently. 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 noted above, the existing on-site building consumes 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 building. Therefore, while the project may result in a net increase in energy demand, energy would be consumed more efficiently due to modern regulations. 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 to meet Code requirements. Short-term and long-term 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 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and thereby reduce energy demand associated with transportation. Based on the above, compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code, which requires buildings to be all electric, and 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 133 May 2022 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. Thus, a less- than-significant impact would occur. 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 EV 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 134 May 2022 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 135 May 2022 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.44 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 Investigation prepared by GEOCON (see Appendix D).45 The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, as designated pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and known faults do not cross the site. The nearest known active fault surface trace is the San Andreas Fault, which is mapped approximately 2.75 miles from the site. The inland valleys, as well as the structural depression within which San Francisco Bay is located, are filled with unconsolidated to semi-consolidated deposits of Quaternary age (about the last 1.6 million years). Continental deposits (alluvium) consist of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sand, silt, clay and gravel, while the bay deposits typically consist of soft organic-rich silt and clay (bay mud) or sand. Background geologic mapping by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the majority of the site is underlain by sandstone and shale of the Cretaceous- and Jurassic-age Franciscan Complex with artificial fills at the southern margin of the site. The artificial fills area likely associated with the in-fill of former natural stream channels during original site development. 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) • 8.1-I-3 Explore programs that would build incentives to retrofit unreinforced masonry buildings. 44 South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999. 45 GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 136 May 2022 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, existing federal, state, and local regulations and oversight are 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 transportation projects would include ground disturbances that could expose underlying soils to the effects of erosion. However, existing regulatory requirements specify 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 137 May 2022 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 sponsors. The project sponsor will retain a qualified paleontologist for identification and salvage of fossils so that construction delays can be 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 138 May 2022 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 2.75 miles from the site. Therefore, fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site.46 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 Investigation 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 fully 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 and related effects. However, the CBSC provides minimum standards to ensure that the 46 GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 139 May 2022 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, 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 Investigation identified a portion of the alluvium below groundwater as potentially liquefiable. However, according to GEOCON, due to the depth to the liquefiable layer, the potential for ground loss due to sand boils or fissures in a seismic event is considered low. The likely consequence of potential liquefaction at the site is ground surface settlement. The GEOCON analysis concluded that, if liquefaction were to occur, settlements on the order of two inches may result at the southern margin of the site. Corresponding differential settlements may occur over a short horizontal distance due to the abrupt transition to formational materials across the site. Nonetheless, further evaluation is required through soil borings and laboratory testing to determine the liquefaction potential, and design accordingly. Without further evaluation of the on-site liquefaction potential, 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 potential 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, 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, 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. 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, 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 140 May 2022 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. However, as discussed under question “a.iii”, a portion of the site includes soils that are potentially liquefiable, and settlement could occur if the building is not appropriately designed. 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 potential 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 Investigation prepared for the proposed project did not identify expansive soils on-site. Therefore, 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 the existing City sewer system. 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 soils 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. Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-3, this analysis relies on a records search request for a separate development project located on a neighboring lot that was submitted to the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) on January 22, 2021. The neighboring lot, hereafter referred to as the study lot, is located approximately 30 meters west of the project site. As noted in the records search request results, all latitude and longitudes for paleontological resources should be assumed to have several hundred meters of error. Due to the substantial margin of error and the close proximity to the project site, the results of the records search can reasonably be applied to the project site. The records search identified the following three Pleistocene deposits to the west of the study lot: UCMP localities 164A, 164B, and V6319. In addition, several invertebrate localities that produced mollusks and echinoids from the Pliocene to Pleistocene Merced 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 141 May 2022 Formation exist in former creek beds near V6319. However, the aforementioned sites were all collected when the general area was less developed. The project area has since been built up, developed, and covered in fill. Because fossils were not identified in the immediate project area, and the surrounding area has been previously developed, the UCMP staff determined that previously reported fossils do not exist on or near the study lot.47 Because the study lot is located immediately west of the project site, and the nearest paleontological resources to the study lot are located west of the study lot, the same conclusion reasonably applies to the project site. 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, resulting in a less-than-significant impact regarding the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource. Project-Specific Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact 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 47 Patricia Holroyd, Ph.D., Senior Museum Scientist at UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. Personal Communication [email] with Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician at Raney Planning & Management, Inc. March 18, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 142 May 2022 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 project-specific Mitigation Measure, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects to Geology and Soils. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 143 May 2022 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, 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 BAAQMD’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 Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which established an emissions reduction goal of reducing statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.48 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 48 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update: Proposed Thresholds of Significance. December 7, 2009. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 144 May 2022 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, BAAQMD has begun the process of updating its CEQA Guidelines. While updated CEQA Guidelines have not yet been released, on April 20, 2022, the Air District Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans.49 Key motivations of this effort include the need to update the recommended thresholds to align with the latest State GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2045, and to support local planning efforts. 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, 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 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 the regional transportation network. Discussions of impacts from car and light duty truck trips on climate change is not required of Transit Priority Projects 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 49 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed April 25, 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 145 May 2022 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. The information included in the CAP fulfills the requirements of Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, but has not been updated to address compliance with reduction targets after 2020. It should be noted that the project is evaluated qualitatively for compliance with the CAP, but 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 warehouse building generates GHG emissions during normal operations. The operational GHG emissions of the existing conditions have been modeled using CalEEMod, and the results are presented in Table 8 below. Table 8 Existing On-Site Conditions - Operational GHG Emissions Source Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) Area 0.01 Energy 85.99 Mobile 408.93 Solid Waste 22.58 Water 16.26 Total Operational Emissions 533.75 Source: CalEEMod, April 2021 (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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 146 May 2022 • 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. 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. However, 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 CAP or other qualified GHG reduction plan, is focused on lead agency efforts, and would not apply to the proposed project. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 147 May 2022 Project-Specific Impact Discussion a, b. Because the proposed project is a Transit Priority Project, a discussion of impacts from light vehicle traffic on global climate change is not required, pursuant to PRC 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 1,609.81 MTCO2e over the course of 2.5 years. The most emissions-intensive year of construction is expected to occur in 2024, with construction resulting in 758.03 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 9, total amortized unmitigated construction emissions would equate to 643.92 MTCO2e/yr over the assumed 2.5-year construction period of the project. Table 9 Unmitigated Annual Project Construction GHG Emissions Year Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) 2023 329.91 2024 758.03 2025 521.87 Total Construction Emissions 1,609.81 Amortized Annual Construction Emissions 643.92 Source: CalEEMod, April 2022 (Appendix A, page 55). According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in total annual GHG emissions as shown in Table 10, including the amortized construction emissions. Additionally, the GHG emissions associated with the current operation of the existing commercial building 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 898.69 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 148 May 2022 result in emissions below the BAAQMD’s former 1,100 MTCO2e/yr threshold of significance, and the proposed project would not conflict with AB 32. Table 10 Unmitigated Annual Operational GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) Emission Source Existing Conditions Proposed Project Net New Annual GHG Emissions Area 0.01 15.37 +15.36 Energy 85.99 269.391 +183.4 Solid Waste 22.58 67.55 +44.97 Water 16.26 33.16 +16.9 Amortized Construction Emissions - 638.06 +638.06 Total Annual GHG Emissions 124.82 1,023.53 898.69 BAAQMD Threshold - - 1,100.00 Exceeds Threshold? - - NO Note: In compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed building would be all-electric, and would not include natural gas infrastucture. The prohibition of natural gas, and associated increase in electricity use, have been calculated off-model. Refer to Appendix A, page 173. Source: CalEEMod, April 2021 and April 2022 (Appendix A, pages 5 and 58). The updated GHG thresholds adopted by BAAQMD on April 20, 2022 to address more recent climate change legislation, including SB 32, provide thresholds related to Buildings and Transportation. The proposed project is not subject to the Transportation thresholds as it is considered a Transit Priority Project; 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 the regional transportation network. Regarding BAAQMD’s new Buildings threshold, a project must be shown to meet the following minimum project design elements:50 a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. As noted in the above table, in compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed building would be all-electric, and would not include natural gas infrastructure. Thus, criterion ‘a’ would be met. As demonstrated in Section IV of this SCEA, the proposed project would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage. Thus, criterion ‘b’ would be met and it can be seen that the proposed project would not conflict with the State’s latest climate legislation, including SB 32. Climate Action Plan The City’s CAP is implemented at the project level through preparation of the Development Review Checklist. The Development Review Checklist for the proposed project is included 50 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans [pg. 2]. April 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 149 May 2022 as Appendix E 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; and • 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 Prior to the recent adoption of GHG emissions thresholds to assess compliance with SB 32, the BAAQMD 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.51 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. Notwithstanding the BAAQMD’s recent adoption of GHG thresholds related to SB 32, this SCEA also discusses the project’s consistency with the applicable Local Actions within the 2017 Scoping Plan in Table 11 below. Table 11 Analysis of 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 for construction vehicles associated with the project 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- The CALGreen Code requires the diversion of construction and demolition waste, and the proposed 51 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. (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 150 May 2022 Table 11 Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion sourced building materials with a high recycled material content to the greatest extent feasible. 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. While the two on-site trees would be removed as part of the proposed project, the project would include planting several trees as part of the Landscaping Plan. As such, the loss of sequestration associated with the removal of two trees would be offset by planting several new trees. Thus, 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 diesel fuel where commercially available. The project applicant has not committed to the use of alternatively fueled construction equipment. Furthermore, the commercial availability of renewable 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 Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion Comply with lead agency’s standards for mitigating transportation impacts under SB 743. As noted in Section XIII, 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, the 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. New construction within the City is required to facilitate future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers. Specific requirements for multi-family developments with more than 20 dwelling units include the installation of one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space in the first 20 dwelling units with parking spaces. For each additional dwelling unit, 25 percent of the dwelling units with parking space(s) are required to have at least one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space. Each remaining dwelling unit with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least one Level 1 Electric Vehicle Ready Space. Compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code would ensure that the proposed project provides sufficient EV charging infrastructure to comply with this suggested measure. (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 151 May 2022 Table 11 Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion 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 31 short-term and 104 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, sidewalk improvements would be implemented along the Airport Boulevard frontage. In addition, the project would include both short- and long- term bicycle parking, bicycle and scooter share projects, a bicycle repair station, and other bike and pedestrian improvements. Consequently, the project would comply with the suggested measure. Additional discussion of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities is provided in Section XIII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS. 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 building 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 (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 152 May 2022 Table 11 Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion recycling. Therefore, the proposed multi-family residential building 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 residential developments to achieve Zero Net Energy at this time. Nonetheless, consistent with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed building would be all-electric. Based on such, and considering the State’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, the proposed project would likely achieve Zero Net Energy by 2045, as well. 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 not committed to achieving any third-party green building certifications. Consequently, compliance with the suggested measure is uncertain at this time. Require the design of bike lanes to connect to the regional bicycle network. The City is in the process of preparing an update to its Bicycle Master Plan. Active South City is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the City of South San Francisco, currently in development and expected to be completed in the early 2022. Potential bike lane improvements in the immediate project vicinity are being evaluated comprehensively by the City through the Active South City plan process. Additional discussion of existing and proposed bicycle facilities is provided in Section XIII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS. 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. (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 153 May 2022 Table 11 Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion Require preferential parking spaces for park and ride to incentivize carpooling, vanpooling, commuter bus, electric vehicles, and rail service use. The proposed TDM includes measures that would incentivize alternative travel and reduce VMT, including, but not limited to, the following: unbundled parking, bike repair stations, carpool and vanpool incentives, public bike and scooter share programs, rideshare matching events, etc. In addition, consistent with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed project would be required to exceed the number of EV charging stations typically required by the CALGreen Code. 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, which includes standards related to installation of energy- efficient appliances and building features such as water heaters and ventilation systems, as well as the City’s Energy Reach Code. 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, which includes standards related to energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, as well as the City’s Energy Reach Code. 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 all applicable provisions of the residential water efficiency regulations within the CALGreen Code. 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. 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. 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 The suggested mitigation measures included in the 2017 Scoping Plan are not considered to be requirements for local projects under CEQA, but instead (Table continued on next page) 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 154 May 2022 Table 11 Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion 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. 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, is consistent with the City’s CAP, and below BAAQMD’s quantitative thresholds, 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]. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed April 2021. 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 areas to walk or bike to work, eliminating the need for single passenger vehicle commutes, and thus reducing mobile GHG emissions. Additionally, because the project is a Transit Priority Project, the proposed project would also be consistent with ABAG’s GHG reductions mandated by SB 375. Considering that the project’s emissions would be consistent with BAAQMD’s 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 155 May 2022 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 156 May 2022 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 an approximately 35,000-sf commercial warehouse building, which was constructed circa 1950, and associated paved area. Existing development completely surrounds the site. The date of construction for the on-site structure predates the bans employed by the federal government regarding the use of lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. 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).52 As a result, BAAQMD regulates construction activities that produce dust that could contain NOA. Tenants on the subject property have included a steel machine shop (1950-1970), Tire Jobbers (1970), Bay Carbon Company (1977-1995), Ogden Allied Services Corp. (1987-1995), Sky Chefs (2000-2005), Quong Hop (2005), J.R. Produce (2005), Capital Sigma Investments (2010), and The Produce and United Property (2015-present). 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. 52 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 157 May 2022 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. 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 158 May 2022 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 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 individual 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 159 May 2022 e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the potential 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 response 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’ E1527-05 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. 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 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 160 May 2022 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-containing dust. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable regulations under the Asbestos ACTM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. In addition, project-specific Mitigation Measure I-2 requires implementation of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan during construction of the proposed project, and would reduce potential impacts related to exposure to NOA- containing dust to a less-than-significant level. Construction activities associated with upsizing the off-site sewer line would be required to comply with Element V, Design and Construction Standards, of the City of South San Francisco Sewer System Management Plan. Compliance with such standards would ensure that the accidental release of hazardous waste is unlikely to occur. A Phase I ESA was prepared for the proposed project by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) for the purpose of identifying potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the project site (see Appendix F).53 The Phase I ESA included a reconnaissance of the project site and a review of local, State, 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, and the existing warehouse structure is visible in aerial photographs by 1956. The site reconnaissance of the project site was conducted on December 4, 2017.54 The project site was examined for debris, hazardous substances storage, aboveground and underground storage tanks, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), strong or noxious odors, pools of liquid, stressed vegetation, or any other conditions that may be indicative of potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination. Hazardous substances or petroleum products were not observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance. One 430-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) for chlorine and two 200-gallon ASTs for ‘sanitize solution’ were observed on the eastern side of the building. The chlorine and sanitize solution are used to disinfect the produce processed at the existing facility. Three 55-gallon drums wrapped in plastic were observed in the cooling system enclosure located north of the building on the project site. According to the facility manager, the 55-gallon drums are currently empty, and were previously used to contain chlorine before the installation of the chlorine AST. Signs of spills or leakage from any of the tanks were not observed. One pad mounted electrical transformer, owned and 53 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017. 54 The current conditions of the project site are substantially similar to the on-site conditions that were present at the time that the site reconnaissance was conducted. Therefore, the conclusions of the Phase I ESA remain applicable. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 161 May 2022 operated by PG&E, was observed southwest of the building in the subject property. Based on the type and condition of the generator, the generator was likely installed after 1977 and, therefore, is not anticipated to contain PCB. Other potential PCB-containing equipment (transformers, oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, etc.) was not observed on the project site during the site reconnaissance. In addition, the Phase I ESA concluded that vapor migration is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern at this time. Overall, the Phase I ESA did not identify any existing RECs that could be exacerbated by development of the project. Records obtained from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department indicate that the project site has been identified as a permit holder to store hazardous waste, including motor vehicle fuel and/or waste, since 2007, and as a hazardous waste generator since 2010. Violations, including administrative/paperwork and labeling issues, an open and unlabeled waste oil container with a drip pan, and oil or grease on concrete on an outside caged area located north of the building, were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on the minor nature of these violations and lack of a documented release, Partner concluded that such violations are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. As noted in Section I, Air Quality, of this SCEA IS, structures built prior to 1978 and especially prior to the 1960s should be expected to contain LBP. In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 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 (ACMs)” unless proven otherwise. The existing warehouse building was constructed circa 1950. Based on the age of the building, the potential exists that LBP and ACM is present. Without a comprehensive ACM and lead survey, demolition of the existing warehouse could result in the exposure of construction workers to such hazardous materials. 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. However, construction and demolition activities could result in the release of NOA, ACM, and/or LBP. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur. However, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure VII-1, which would be required by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. 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 65962.5.55 55 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 April 2020. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 162 May 2022 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 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.56 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, 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 have a less-than-significant impact 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 XVI, Wildfire, of this SCEA IS. As noted therein, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.57 In addition, the project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of South San Francisco and is surrounded by existing development. The developed nature of the area surrounding the project site helps to preclude 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, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 56 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November 2012. 57 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 163 May 2022 Project-Specific Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure would reduce the potentially significant impact identified above to a less-than-significant level. VII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3. 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 RECs do not exist on the site. However, based on the age of the on-site structure and the type of bedrock underlying the site, Mitigation Measure VII-1, which requires implementation of Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3, would ensure that hazards related to NOA, ACMs, or LBPs do not occur during construction and demolition. 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 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, with implementation of the aforementioned project-specific Mitigation Measure, the project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 164 May 2022 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 a commercial warehouse building and associated paved areas. The site is located approximately 450 feet north of 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, including the 12-inch storm drain line in Airport Boulevard. 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 as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X).58 Developments within Zone X are not required to elevate or flood proof, as risk of flooding is considered low. 58 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F. April 5, 2019. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 165 May 2022 Groundwater The project site is located within the boundaries of the Westside Basin. The Westside Basin is not adjudicated and, in its recent evaluation of California groundwater basins, the Department of Water Resources determined that the basin is not in a condition of critical overdraft and designated it as low priority. 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 Westside Basin is generally good quality and delivered water meets all State and federal regulations.59 The project site is located within the South San Francisco District of Cal Water, which would provide water service to the proposed project. The South San Francisco District of Cal Water operates five groundwater wells that are allocated an annual average pumping rate of 1.37 million gallons per day (MGD). Groundwater provides approximately 20 percent of the annual demand in the district, with the remaining demand being met by purchased surface water, as discussed further in Section XV, 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. 59 Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July 2012. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 166 May 2022 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. 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 167 May 2022 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). 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 168 May 2022 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 building 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 169 May 2022 the project site. Following implementation of the proposed project, the site would contain approximately 61,855 sf of impervious surface area. Thus, the project would be subject to the requirements of the C.3 Stormwater Standards related to stormwater treatment. However, it is noted that the project site is already primarily covered in impervious surfaces due to the existing structure and parking area, and the entire 61,855 sf of impervious surface area associated with the proposed project would not be net new. Per the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-0074, certain projects, including transit-oriented developed, such as the proposed project, are eligible for 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/self-treating areas, bioretention, and media filters. A preliminary Stormwater Plan has been prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 11). The proposed project would divide the site into eight total DMAs and associated treatment measures. DMA 1 includes a dog run and is self-retaining/self-treating. DMA-6 consists of landscaping along the rear of the building and is also self-retaining. DMAs 2 through 5 and 7 and 8, generally consisting of roof or concrete surfaces, would direct runoff towards separate bioretention areas or flow-through planters. The bio-retention areas would treat stormwater primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil, allowing for removal of pollutants. Additionally, as part of the project, a new eight-inch stormwater line would collect stormwater from DMA 4 and direct it towards a new PerkFilterTM media filtration vault and ultimately into the City’s stormwater system. Per the preliminary Stormwater Plan prepared for the proposed project, all proposed stormwater treatment measures would be sized to adequately handle all runoff from the associated DMAs. 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 the projected impact would be less than significant. b,e The proposed project would include a rezone from FC to a zoning designation that allows high-density residential. High-density residential development would involve a higher water demand when compared to the FC 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 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the South San Francisco District, groundwater currently accounts for approximately 20 percent of the District’s water supplies.60 The volume of groundwater pumped is planned to remain consistent over time in order to ensure sustainable 60 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District [pg. 58]. June 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 170 May 2022 groundwater maintenance. For example, the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan notes that, while the overall water demand from the South San Francisco District service area is projected to increase, the demand will be met through a steady supply of 1,535 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater and the remaining demand will be met through purchased surface water. The projected groundwater supply meets the projected groundwater demand of 1,535 AFY.61 It is noted that, in the year 2020, 52 AFY of groundwater was pumped for municipal water use in South San Francisco. Furthermore, per the 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report for the Westside Basin, groundwater levels were stable or trended higher in 2020 as compared to 2019 in most of the wells throughout the Westside Basin, with the exception of wells in the vicinity of Lake Merced.62 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. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially 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.63 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, a less-than- significant impact would occur. c.i-iii. The project site is currently developed and includes substantial paved areas. As noted under question ‘a’, above, 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. Given that the project site is already developed and connected to the City’s storm drain infrastructure, and that the project would not result in a greater volume of stormwater runoff following implementation of the project as compared to existing conditions, the existing storm drain system would be adequate to continue serving the project site. It should be noted that, per the Countywide Hydromodification Control Area Map in the San Mateo County C.3 61 Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan [pg. 3-19]. July 2012. 62 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. April 2021. 63 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 171 May 2022 Stormwater Technical Guidance Appendix H, the proposed project would not be subject to Hydromodification Management requirements.64 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 result in a less-than-significant impact. c.iv. According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06081C0043F, the project site is designated 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 (Zone X).65 As such, the site is not classified as a Special Flood Hazard Area or otherwise located within a 100-year or 500-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. According to Appendix B, Asset Exposure Maps, of the County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, the project site is located just outside of the projected High Scenario Sea Level Rise (SLR) boundaries.66 The High scenario shows the possible extent of flooding during a 1 percent chance annual storm plus 6.6 feet of sea level rise and is considered a worst-case scenario in the Vulnerability Assessment. As a result, adaptation strategy or strategies to reduce the impacts of sea level rise are not required for the proposed project. Thus, 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.67 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. 64 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2 [Page H-3]. January 4, 2013. 65 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F. April 5, 2019. 66 County of San Mateo. County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Final Report, Published March 2018. 67 California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: State of California, County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle. June 15, 2009. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 172 May 2022 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 structure, 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. In addition, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c), which is related to sea level rise, has been satisfied. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Hydrology or Water Quality. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 173 May 2022 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 174 May 2022 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 individual 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 a commercial warehouse building. The site is bound by Caltrain railroad tracks to the north, a restaurant to the south, US 101 and a hotel to the east, and Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue, commercial businesses, and industrial businesses to the west. 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, the proposed project would involve a General Plan Amendment to re- designate the site for high-density residential/mixed use under the DTC land use designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment would ensure that the project is consistent with the Preferred Land Use Map included in the City’s General Plan Update. 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 Chapter 20.140 of the Municipal Code. Thus, the project includes a request to rezone the site from FC to PD. The PD zoning would incorporate certain land uses and development standards from the existing DTC zoning district, including multi-family residential at a maximum density of up to 180 units per acre (subject to meeting specified criteria). The PD zoning could also incorporate land uses allowed by the existing FC zoning district that 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 175 May 2022 the property owners want to retain. Upon approval of the aforementioned entitlements, the project would comply with all zoning and land use regulations. 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. In addition, the project would be subject to all applicable General Plan policies and would be generally consistent with the goals established therein. 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, 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 developed 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 176 May 2022 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 G).68 The project site is located in a central area of the City of South San Francisco, surrounded by development on all sides. The noise environment of the project site would be considered typical for an urban setting, with regular traffic noise. The primary noise sources contributing the ambient noise in the project vicinity are railroad activities on the rail lines and vehicular traffic on US 101. Other noise sources include local vehicle traffic, as well as aircraft and commercial/industrial activities. Four main Caltrain and Union Pacific Railroad lines and one spur line exist on the north side of the project site. The four main rail lines are between 80 to 120 feet from the proposed building, and the spur line is located approximately 45 feet from the proposed building. The US 101 freeway centerline is located approximately 310 feet east of the proposed building. The project site is currently used as a produce distribution center, and noise from the associated heavy trucks and ground-level mechanical equipment contributes to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise measurements were conducted from April 27, 2021 to April 30, 2021, to quantify the existing noise environment. The measurements consisted of two long-term, 48-hour, measurements (Locations LT-1 and LT-2) and five short-term, 15-minute, measurements (Locations ST-1 through ST-5). The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 14 below. Results of the short-term noise monitoring are presented in Table 12. The long-term measurement at Location LT-1 was made on an existing fence north of the project site, and the measured Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) was 71 A-weighted decibels (dBA). The long-term measurement at Location LT-2 was made on a light pole east of the project site. At Location LT-2, freeway noise was typically 63 to 65 dBA during the daytime and 56 to 65 dBA during the nighttime. The measured CNEL at Location LT-2 was 70 dBA. 68 RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: 40 Airport Boulevard. August 23, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 177 May 2022 Figure 14 Noise Measurement Locations 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 178 May 2022 Table 12 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results Site Location Date/Time Leq L50 CNEL* Pandemic adjusted CNEL** ST-1 Near setback of Project Building from railroad tracks 4/27/21 6:38 PM – 6:53 PM 66 64 69 71 ST-2 East side of project on easement road between project site and La Quinta Hotel 4/27/21 6:13 PM – 6:28 PM 66 65 72 74 ST-3 Southeast side of project on easement road between project site and La Quinta Hotel 4/27/21 7:08 PM – 7:29 PM 68 65 73 74 ST-4 Airport Blvd 4/30/21 5:42 PM – 5:57 PM 68 66 70 72 ST-5 South Airport Blvd 4/30/21 6:06 PM – 6:23 PM 71 70 74 76 * CNEL calculated based on correlation between simultaneous long-term and short-term measurements. ** Includes factor to account for traffic and Caltrain volume reduction during coronavirus pandemic. Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021. Train passbys generated maximum instantaneous noise levels typically ranging from 75 to 86 dBA, and occasionally ranging from 88 to 100 dBA at LT-1. The maximum instantaneous noise levels were generally less at LT-2 due to acoustical shielding and additional distance from the railroad tracks. The noise events with Lmax greater than 86 dBA were due to train horns. The Caltrain schedule effective May 2022 shows Caltrain service from 5:08 AM to 12:33 AM for the South San Francisco station. The schedule also shows that before 9:00 PM there are generally two northbound and two southbound trains per hour including those that bypass the South San Francisco station. 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 13 below. Table 13 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 PM – 7 AM 7 AM – 10 PM 50 60 R-3 and D-C zones, or any multi-family residential or mixed residential/commercial in a specific plan district 10 PM – 7 AM 7 AM – 10 PM 55 60 C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster Point Marina specific plan district, or any commercial use in a specific plan district 10 PM – 7 AM 7 AM – 10 PM 60 65 M-1, P-1 Anytime 70 Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 179 May 2022 The levels shown in Table 13 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 in the table. 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 hours, and is what residents of urban areas periodically expect as part of a typical urban noise environment (along with sirens, pedestrian noise, etc.). The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes guidelines for noise as well, summarized in Table 14 below. Table 14 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, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 180 May 2022 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. • 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 181 May 2022 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 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, a 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 potential 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 182 May 2022 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, a 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 Measure 2.6-3(c) is specific to transportation projects and 2.6-4(b) is specific to rail extension projects. Therefore, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-3(c) and 2.6-4 (b) would not apply. In addition, Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(b) applies to use of pile driving during construction. The project applicant has indicated that pile driving will not be used during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(b) is not applicable. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-1(a), 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 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. 2.6-2 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 noise exposure at new receptors and recommend appropriate measures to reduce noise exposure. To reduce exposure from traffic-noise, lead agencies and/or 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 183 May 2022 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 conducted during the less sensitive daytime hours (per the applicable local municipal code). Electrical generators or other mechanical equipment shall 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 184 May 2022 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 approximately 400 feet north of the project site. Construction Noise from demolition and construction activities would add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. Construction activity is estimated to begin in March 2023 with an overall duration of 29 months. The demolition phase is estimated to last 30 days. Site preparation including grading activities would last an estimated four months. The project building construction would last 29 months and the paving activities would occur for less than 30 days. According to the project applicant, there will be no pile driving during construction. 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. Table 15 presents typical noise levels for the construction equipment that is expected to be used for the project, as well as the noise levels at a distance of 25 feet for comparison with the City’s noise ordinance. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 185 May 2022 Table 15 Standard Construction Equipment Noise Levels Construction Equipment Reference Noise Level at 50 feet, dBA* Calculated Noise Level at 25 feet, dBA Excavator 81 87 Rubber Tired Dozer 82 88 Backhoe 78 84 Tractor 84 90 Loader 79 85 Crane 81 87 Forklift 83 89 Welder 74 80 Air Compressor 78 84 Man lift 75 81 Cement and Mortar Mixer 79 85 Paver 77 83 Roller 80 86 Source: FHWA, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Construction activities are permitted by the City’s Municipal Code during allowable construction hours provided that either noise from individual equipment does not exceed 90 dBA at 25 feet or the noise level at any point outside the property plane does not exceed 90 dBA. As shown in the table, none of the identified pieces of construction equipment would generate noise over 90 dB at 25 feet. Therefore, given the expected noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment, the size of the project site, and the intermittent nature of equipment use, project construction would not result in noise levels that exceed 90 dBA outside of the property plane. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the construction noise regulations set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to construction noise. 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. Operations The primary sources of operational noise associated with the proposed project would be from project-generated vehicular traffic and mechanical equipment noise. The foregoing noise sources are discussed separately below. Traffic Noise For the purposes of this analysis, project-specific traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers were evaluated for associated noise levels under the Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios at the Produce Avenue intersection and the South Airport Boulevard/US 101 on-ramp intersection. The project’s draft transportation impact analysis (TIA) shows a project-generated net new trips of 49 during the AM peak hour and 51 during the PM peak hour. The vehicle trips generated by the project would represent a very small percentage of overall daily and peak hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the traffic study area. According to the Technical Noise Study, the increase in traffic volumes between the Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios, due to the proposed project, would be less than one percent. This 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 186 May 2022 increase in traffic volumes corresponds to an increase of less than 0.1 dBA of transportation noise. According to the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), in places where the ambient noise level is greater than 65 dB, such as the project site (refer to Table 12), a noise level increase of 1.5 dB or greater is considered to be significant. Therefore, the project-generated increase in traffic noise of less than 0.1 dBA is considered to be less than significant. Cumulative growth is considered reasonably foreseeable growth in the area that is not directly related to the proposed project. For instance, vehicular traffic will increase in the City due to growth that is not directly related to the proposed project. The difference in traffic volumes between the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios is less than one percent, which corresponds to a project future traffic noise contribution of less than 0.1 dBA. Therefore, the project’s contribution to increases in cumulative traffic noise would be less than significant. In addition, following implementation of the project, vehicle access would be provided along the easement road between the proposed project and the neighboring La Quinta Hotel. Based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) and using the project’s peak hour traffic volumes, an equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) of 51 dBA at 20 feet was calculated from the roadway centerline. As compared to the noise measurements along the easement road (LT-2 and ST-3), the increase in traffic noise CNEL due to the proposed project would be less than 1 dBA. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mechanical Equipment The proposed project would include mechanical equipment generally associated with building ventilation, such as rooftop air-conditioning units and ventilation fans. The architectural roof plan in the drawing set, dated 12/3/2020, shows the proposed locations of 271 heat pumps. The exact mechanical equipment model has not been determined so for the purpose of this report, RGD analyzed the noise from the heat pumps using data from another similar project, which used heat pumps by Carrier (CH16NA series). According to the City’s Municipal Code, maximum permissible sound levels from a project are determined by the land use category of the receiving property. The permissible levels are in terms of L50 and are shown in Municipal Code Table 8.32.030. For the purpose of this analysis, noise from mechanical equipment is assessed against the most restrictive nighttime noise standard (when ambient noise is quietest) at each of the nearest receivers. Table 16 presents the calculations for each exterior noise standard. As shown therein, the applicable noise limit for the project’s mechanical equipment is an L50 of 60 dBA at the La Quinta Hotel and Denny’s Restaurant, an L50 of 58 dBA at the recently approved multi- family residential project to the west, an L50 of 56 dBA at the multi-family residential building to the north, and an L50 of 70 dBA at the mixed-industrial uses across the railroad tracks. The estimated noise from the mechanical equipment on the proposed building rooftop at each nearby receiver is presented in Table 17. As demonstrated in the table, the project’s mechanical equipment noise is expected to be below the applicable noise standards at all receiving locations. However, because the exact mechanical equipment models have not been determined and analyzed, the potential exists that the actual mechanical equipment could result in noise levels at the nearby receivers that exceed the applicable standards. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 187 May 2022 Table 16 Determination of Mechanical Equipment Noise Standard Receivers La Quinta Hotel Denny’s Restaurant Future Multi- Family Residential Project to the West1 New Multi- Family Residential Project to the North2 Mixed- Industrial Zones across Railroad Tracks Zoning Designation FC FC PD DTC MI Land Use Category (per Table 8.32.030) Commercial Use Commercial Use Multiple-Family Residential Multiple-Family Residential M-1 Base Nighttime Noise Standard (L50, dBA) 60 60 55 55 70 Nighttime Ambient (L50, dBA) 57 – 67 59 - 68 58 - 68 56 - 66 56 - 66 Adjustment for Ambient Noise (if ambient noise exceeds standard) 0 0 +3 +1 0 Applicable Nighttime Noise Standard with Ambient Correction (L50, dBA) 60 60 58 56 70 Notes: 1 PS Business Park Project 2 150 Airport Boulevard Project Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021. Table 17 Estimated Mechanical Equipment Noise Level at Nearby Receivers (L50, dBA) Receivers La Quinta Hotel Denny’s Restaurant Future Multi- Family Residential Project to the West1 New Multi- Family Residential Project to the North2 Mixed- Industrial Zones across Railroad Tracks Calculated Noise Level 55 52 51 45 48 Applicable Nighttime Noise Standard with Ambient Correction 60 60 58 56 70 Exceeds Standard? NO NO NO NO NO Notes: 1 PS Business Park Project 2 150 Airport Boulevard Project Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 188 May 2022 Conclusion Based on the above, construction activities and traffic noise generated by 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. In addition, operation of the proposed rooftop HVAC equipment is not anticipated to result in the generation of a substantial 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, because specific rooftop equipment has not yet been selected, the potential exists for mechanical equipment to generate noise in excess of the City’s applicable standards. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-5 requires that features be incorporated into project design such that mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, shall not generate noise levels over 70 dBA CNEL (or the applicable local noise standard). Implementation of Plan Bay Area Measure 2.6-5 would reduce the potential 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. 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(a), which offers recommendations to further reduce construction noise, is hereby incorporated as a requirement of the proposed project and would be included as a part of the conditions of approval. b. Residential land uses do not typically generate groundborne noise or groundborne vibration during operations. It is noted, however, that Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-4(a), which relates to vibration impacts from existing rail lines on proposed residential land uses, would be applicable to the project pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2. 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. Neither CEQA nor the City of South San Francisco, specifies acceptable vibration levels from construction activities. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the guideline criteria for building damage recommended by Caltrans is used. The construction vibration damage criteria range from a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 0.25 inches/sec for historic and some old buildings to 0.5 inches/sec for modern industrial/commercial buildings. The nearest neighboring building is the La Quinta Hotel to the east of the project site, across the easement road. At the closest point, the project site is approximately 38 feet from the hotel. Table 18 shows the construction vibration levels that would be experienced at the hotel building and the Denny’s restaurant building to the south. Other buildings are located across roadways at distances of more than 110 feet from the nearest project site boundary and would be exposed to lower construction vibration levels. As previously noted, pile driving would not occur during construction. As shown in the table, the maximum vibration levels would be approximately 0.11 PPV, which falls below the 0.5 PPV threshold for damage to modern buildings. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 189 May 2022 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. Table 18 Calculated Vibration Levels from Construction (PPV in inches/sec) Equipment La Quinta Hotel (20 Airport Blvd) Denny’s Restaurant (10 Airport Blvd) 38 feet from Equipment 70 feet from Equipment Vibratory Roller 0.11 0.04 Hoe Ram 0.05 0.02 Large Bulldozer 0.05 0.02 Caisson Drilling 0.05 0.02 Loaded Trucks 0.04 0.02 Jackhammer 0.02 0.01 Small Bulldozer < 0.01 < 0.01 Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021. c. The project site is located within the vicinity of the San Francisco International Airport. However, according to the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 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 are not anticipated to generate noise levels that exceed the standards set forth in the Municipal Code. In addition, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6- 1(a) would address construction noise and ensure that such impact is less-than-significant. Operation of the project would involve normal residential land use, which is not typically considered to be a noise-generating land use. In addition, Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.6- 5 would ensure that the rooftop HVAC equipment selected for the project complies with City noise standards. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial groundborne noise or groundbrone vibration, and the project would not result in substantial impacts related to noise from the nearby airport. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 190 May 2022 Measures 2.6-1(a), 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 Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Noise. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 191 May 2022 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. The project site is located within Fire Station Response Area 61, which is serviced by Station 61, located at 480 North Canal Street, approximately 0.45-mile west of the site. As of 2019, SSFFD staff includes 72 full-time equivalent firefighter and emergency medical employees and 19.8 hourly and contract employees.69 As of January 2019, the SSFFD has a current service ratio of 1.1 full- time firefighters and emergency medical personnel per 1,000 residents. The City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element does not identify a personnel-to-service population target ratio. The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) is principally responsible for providing police protection services within the jurisdictional limits of the City. As of 2019, the SSFPD had a total of 118 employees, with 83 sworn officers and 35 civilian positions.70 According to the General Plan Policy 8.5-I-1, the SSFPD strives to maintain 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. As of January 2019, the SSFPD has a current service ratio of 1.2 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, which is below the goal set forth in the General Plan. In 2018-2019, the SSFPD response times to Priority 1 (emergency) calls averaged 3:51 minutes and non-emergency Priority 2 and 3 calls averaged 5:35 and 7:31 minutes, respectively. The SSFPD considers such response times acceptable.71 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 69 City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update: Parks + Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. November 2019. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 192 May 2022 approximately 8,438 students.72 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. The City of South San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation manages over 270 acres of parks and open space. Pursuant to General Plan Policy 5.1, the City aims to achieve a parkland ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents. Because the policy explicitly identifies developed parkland as a goal, undeveloped open space is not included in the service ratio calculation. Considering developed parkland only, the City has a park ratio of approximately 2.6 acres per 1,000 residents.73 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. 72 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. 73 City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update: Parks + Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. November 2019. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 193 May 2022 c. Impacts to the SSFUSD 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. • 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 land use changes could cause 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 194 May 2022 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: 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 292-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 292 residential units from the proposed project and the incident rate of 0.1066 average annual calls per residential unit, the project could be anticipated to result in approximately 31 additional firefighter/emergency response calls per year, or approximately one call every 12 days.74 The addition of less than one call per week would not generate the need for a new fire station to serve the proposed project. 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 pursuant to 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 74 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report [Table A-1]. November 2017. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 195 May 2022 need for new or physically altered facilities would not be induced by the proposed project and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 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 292 additional residential units. Based on the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment’s identified incident rate of 0.1476 average annual calls per residential unit, buildout of the proposed project could potentially result in approximately 43 more police response calls per year.75 At a limited service demand of approximately one additional call every eight 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. 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 292 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. Furthermore, as of 2017, the SSFUSD was operating at 70.3 percent capacity and, thus, adequate capacity is expected to be available to accommodate additional students generated by the proposed project. 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 a commercial warehouse building with 292 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.76 Thus, assuming the average persons per 75 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report [Table A-2]. November 2017. 76 City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Housing Element 2015-2023. April 2015. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 196 May 2022 household rate applies to all 292 units, the population of the project would be approximately 876 residents (292 units x 3.0 persons per household = 876 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 includes outdoor spaces and courtyards, but not dedicated parkland. For instance, the project includes a dog run, outdoor courtyard, fitness center, club room, and roof deck. However, the project applicant is still 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 Fees would be used to fund acquisition of park land and construction of park facilities within the City, including acquisition of 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. Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would not result in the need for new public facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could result in additional environmental effects, in order to maintain adequate Public Services. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 197 May 2022 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.77 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.78 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 77 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2040 EIR. 78 City of South San Francisco. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. July 22, 2015. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 198 May 2022 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 292 multi-family residential units, as well as 17,566 sf of amenity space consisting of a residential café, community room, leasing office, dog run, and dog spa on the first level; bicycle storage on the second level; storage units on the second and third levels; a podium deck/courtyard and fitness center on the fourth level; and a club room and roof deck on the eighth floor. 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 multi-family 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, 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 199 May 2022 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 Transit Priority Project (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 (PRC Section 21159.28(a)). 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), PRC 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 200 May 2022 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.”79 The following setting information is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H).80 Roadway Facilities The project site is located adjacent to the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Produce Avenue. Regional access to the site is provided by US 101 and Airport Boulevard to the north, and US 101 and San Mateo Avenue to the south. Vehicular access to the project site is provided by a shared driveway/easement road on Airport Boulevard, located immediately north of the intersection of Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard. 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 300 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 and defines the East of 101 area’s western edge and barrier to east-west bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. 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; and o Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard: Two southbound off-ramps exist near the project site: one at Produce Avenue and another at Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue. The off-ramp at Produce Avenue 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 site access from the north. Airport Boulevard also provides direct access to the project site by a shared driveway located approximately 100 feet north of the intersection with San Mateo Avenue. • Produce Avenue is a three-lane arterial providing access from the project site to Southbound US 101. • San Mateo Avenue is a two-lane arterial connecting El Camino Real with Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard, providing local access to the project site. 79 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. 80 Fehr & Peers. 40 Airport Blvd Transportation Impact Analysis. April 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 201 May 2022 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 on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose, and limited-service trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains, with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from 5:40 AM to 12:00 AM, with approximately 30-minute headways during peak times and 60-minute headways during off-peak times. As of January 2022, Caltrain has opened a new South San Francisco Caltrain Station located approximately 0.4-mile north of the project site, near the East Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. The new station provides more direct pedestrian access to the project site via a pedestrian underpass with access at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. Pedestrians can walk directly between the project site and the Caltrain Station along Airport Boulevard without needing to cross the street. • 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 about 1.5- miles to the south. BART trains provide weekday service from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM and operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during off- peak hours. • San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service in San Mateo County. Two bus stops are located near the project site, served by Routes 292 and 397 (late night service only). One stop is approximately 0.2-mile to the north, near the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue, and the other stop is approximately 0.4-mile to the southeast, near the US 101 NB Off-ramp at Wondercolor Lane. Route 292 operates every 20 minutes on weekdays and Route 397 operates every 60 minutes. Farther north, Routes 130 and 141 stop at the intersection of Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue. Route 130 operates every 15 minutes during weekdays, while Route 141 operates every 30 minutes. • Three Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org) shuttles provide weekday service near the project site. The shuttles (Oyster Point, Utah/Grand, and One Tower Place) offer commute period first and last-mile connections between the Caltrain Station and local employers in the East of 101 Area. Each shuttle operates at 30- to 60- minute headways during commuting AM and PM peak periods. Shuttle connections are provided on Poletti Way near the newly relocated Caltrans Station, approximately 0.4-mile from the project site. In addition, Commute.org has a Bicycle to Work Rewards Program wherein commuters who live and work in San Mateo County are eligible for the Guaranteed Ride Home program, in which Commute.org will cover the cost of a ride home in case of bad weather or bicycle theft/breakage, and commuters can receive up to $100 for logging bicycle commutes to work in San Mateo County. • The South City Shuttle provides free local transit service in South San Francisco. The shuttle operates in a clockwise and counterclockwise loop every 40 minutes, with the nearest stops near the Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue intersection approximately 0.5-mile from the project site. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 202 May 2022 Figure 15 Existing and Planned Transit Facilities 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 203 May 2022 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. 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 and residential uses to the west of Airport Boulevard. 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. Airport Boulevard has proposed Class IV bicycle lanes between Miller Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. The proposed bicycle lanes on Airport Boulevard will provide direct access to the project site. • San Mateo Avenue and South Airport Boulevard have proposed Class II bicycle lanes between Harbor Way and Tanforan Avenue. The proposed bicycle lanes on San Mateo Avenue will provide direct access to the project site. • Class II bicycle lanes are provided on Gateway Boulevard between East Grand Avenue and South Airport Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard has proposed Class II bicycle lanes between Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue to connect to existing bicycle lanes on both roads. The proposed bicycle lanes on Gateway Boulevard will provide direct access to the project site. • The San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) is a Class I mixed-use trail along the Oyster Point shoreline and Point San Bruno, and is 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. Challenges to cycling in the area include the lack of a continuous bicycle network, lack of separation from higher speed vehicle traffic, and lack of protected intersections. Challenges to cycling related to safety, comfort, access, and circulation, create barriers for people who might bike but have access to other forms of mobility, such as a vehicle. 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 204 May 2022 Figure 16 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 205 May 2022 On Produce Avenue, continuous sidewalks exist only on the west side of the street; the entire east side of Produce Avenue borders US 101 and the expected pedestrian demand is very low. Produce Avenue connects the south leg of the intersection of Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to the southbound US 101 on-ramp at Terminal Court and primarily serves vehicle trips. At the intersection of Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue, marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are provided on all intersection legs. There is a lack of uniformity in pedestrian facilities between each leg of the intersection, which includes curb cuts, pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian push buttons and actuation, the presence of tactile domes, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance features. Additionally, the standard parallel striped crosswalks are faded and misaligned with the pedestrian through zone. The southern crosswalk is actuated to allow pedestrians to cross without pressing a push button and the pedestrian signal head displays a countdown to inform how much time is left to cross; however, such features do not exist at the other three crossings. Different push buttons and signage exist on signal poles. Tactile domes only exist at the southwest leg of the intersection. 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. Pedestrians coming from downtown South San Francisco on the west side of Airport Boulevard would be required to cross the northwest and northeast slip lanes to access the project site. Sidewalks on South Airport Boulevard provide pedestrian connectivity between the project site and the nearest existing Commute.org shuttle stop; however, for pedestrians crossing the channelized right turn lane from Produce Avenue onto South Airport Boulevard, there is no crosswalk or curb cuts on either the porkchop island or sidewalk east of the island. Sidewalks on Airport Boulevard provide continuous pedestrian connectivity between the project site and the nearest SamTrans stop and the Caltrain Station. Future residents and visitors of the project site would have direct access to the Airport Boulevard sidewalks and would not be required to cross the road to access the SamTrans stop or the future Caltrain pedestrian access point near Grand Avenue. Sidewalks are generally in good condition except along the west side of Airport Boulevard before approaching the pedestrian tunnel heading south to the project site. All pedestrians traveling 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 and limited pedestrian-scaled lighting. Emergency Vehicle Access Emergency vehicles typically use major streets through the study area when heading to and from an emergency and/or emergency facility. Arterial roadways allow emergency vehicles to travel at higher speeds and provide enough clearance space to permit other traffic to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicle and yield the right-of-way. Emergency vehicle access to the project site is primarily from South Airport Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. South Airport Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction and Mitchell Avenue has one travel lane in each direction. The project site is located approximately 0.6-mile west of South San Francisco Fire Station 62. Travel time is approximately three minutes from Fire Station 62 to the project site. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 206 May 2022 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 along US 101, I-280, I-380, SR-82, and Bayshore Boulevard. 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-12 - Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements. • 4.2-G-15 - 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-16 - Accept LOS E or F after finding that: 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-14 - 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 207 May 2022 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 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. 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) has already been implemented. 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 208 May 2022 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; • 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. Project traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed project was estimated using a combination of existing driveway trip counts from the existing warehouse 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 209 May 2022 Vehicle trips from the existing warehouse and anticipated trips generated from the proposed project are shown in Table 19. The heavy vehicle counts associated with the existing warehouse were converted to Passenger Car Equivalents in order to provide a clearer comparison to the trips generated by the proposed project. As shown in the table, the project would generate approximately 742 new vehicle trips per day. Table 19 Project Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Land Use Size Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Project1 292 units 1,590 25 73 98 76 48 124 Trip Reductions2 -- -421 -7 -19 -26 -19 -12 -31 Existing Buildings3 36.2 ksf -427 -12 -11 -23 -23 -19 -42 Net New Trips 292 units 742 6 43 49 34 17 51 Notes: 1. Based on ITE 10th Edition (Land Use #221 – Multi-family Housing Mid-Rise). 2. Based on MXD+ trip generation methodology which accounts for built environment factors such as density and diversity of land uses, design of the pedestrian and bicycle environment, site demographics, and accessibility of transit, among other factors. 3. Based on 24-hour driveway counts at the existing site on March 31, 2021. Heavy vehicles converted to Passenger Car Equivalents using 2.0 factor. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. The proposed project would provide adequate site access and circulation for pedestrians. For instance, a paved sidewalk extends from Airport Boulevard across the entire frontage of the building, along the easement road, and several access points would be provided around the building periphery. Access to the building would be provided at three locations along Airport Boulevard including a stairwell to apartment units and the mail room, a stairwell to apartment amenities, and a larger doorway direct to the community room. The sidewalk along the easement road provides access points to the community room, residential café, leasing office/lobby, and the loading/move-in area. Additionally, an entrance is located at the back of the building adjacent to the railroad tracks. Discontinuous sidewalks and curb cuts exist along the easement road bordering the hotel property but, according to Fehr and Peers, does not represent a project-level hazardous condition. Bicycle access would be provided to the project site through the shared driveway along Airport Boulevard adjacent to the intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue. The project would provide 104 long-term protected (Class I) bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the City’s Code requirement for the project. Per the City’s Municipal Code (Section 20.330.008 B.2.a), long-term bicycle parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves and must be located near an entrance to the facility in parking garages. Long-term bicycle parking for the proposed project would be available on the second floor. The project would also include 31 short term bicycle parking spaces, which meets the City’s requirement. Per the City’s Municipal Code (Section 20.330.008 A.2.a), short-term bicycle parking must be located outside of the public right- of-way and pedestrian walkways and within 50 feet of a main entrance to the building it serves. Consistent with Section 20.330.008, the proposed short-term bike parking would be available along the sidewalk in front of the residential building amenity spaces and main building entrance. Therefore, all proposed bicycle parking would achieve the standards established by the City. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 210 May 2022 The proposed project would generate vehicle trips in the vicinity of existing transit services and would generate some new transit trips to existing routes. For example, SamTrans bus routes travel along the project’s frontage on Airport Boulevard. The addition of 74 net new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, or approximately one new vehicle per minute, would not create a disruption to transit service surrounding the project site. Implementation of the proposed project may add net new transit trips to Caltrain and other public transit routes, but ridership would be adequately accommodated through available capacity. The proposed project would not include any features that would disrupt existing or planned transit routes or facilities. The proposed driveways would not cause disruptions to existing or planned transit service or transit stops. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, 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 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(b)(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 and SamTrans bus stops, including Route 130 which operates every 15 minutes on weekdays. The FAR for the proposed building is 4.7; thus, the total FAR is higher than the 0.75 threshold. A total of 308 parking spaces are proposed, which is less than the 394 required by the City Code,81 given the proposed unit types. The applicant has submitted a TDM plan as required by the City to support a reduction in parking spaces below City requirements. The TDM plan will help to encourage non-auto 81 For a multi-unit residential project in a downtown district, the City of South San Francisco requires a minimum of 1 parking space per one-bedroom unit, 1.5 parking spaces per two-bedroom unit up to 1,100 square feet, and 1.5 parking spaces per three or more bedrooms and 1,101 square feet or larger; however, no parking spaces are required for sites that are within a half-mile walking distance of public transit. Based on the preceding, a total of 394 parking spaces would be required by the City code if the project did not meet the exception for proximity to public transit. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 211 May 2022 trips and further reduce non-drive alone vehicle trips. The number of vehicle parking spaces provided is therefore compliant with the South San Francisco Municipal Code and is in line with the South San Francisco General Plan policies and goals to promote alternate modes of transportation. Additionally, the project proposes 31 short term bike parking stalls and 104 long term bike parking stalls, whereas the City requires 31 short term bike parking stalls and 73 long term bike parking stalls. The number of bike parking spaces provided is therefore higher than required by the City, which supports General Plan policies and goals. 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. The project’s TDM plan includes infrastructure on-site to support pedestrians and bicyclists, programmatic elements to educate and incentivize residents to commute by carpool, transit, and biking, and contains monitoring and reporting requirements to analyze the program's effectiveness at further reducing VMT and increasing multi-modal trips. The project site will have ride-share zones, a bicycle parking and repair station, a micromobility hub for e-bikes and e-scooters, and Broadband and Wi-Fi throughout the building that is free in communal spaces to support telecommuting. Additionally, the project will contribute to off-site improvements to the pedestrian tunnel on Airport Boulevard leading to Caltrain. The plan outlines programmatic elements including training leasing staff to share materials with future tenants, marketing materials outlining transportation options in the area, and resources that provide incentives for carpooling, biking, and transit for residents and employees. The TDM Plan includes strategies that result in 285 peak-hour C/CAG trip credits, which exceeds the estimated number of peak-hour trips calculated for the project. Furthermore, the program will monitor and report on residents’ commute patterns through an annual survey and summary report. 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 a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. Safety analysis pursuant to CEQA typically considers whether a proposed project could extend intersection queue lengths such that the backup could interfere with through traffic, thus, creating roadway safety concerns. Two freeway off-ramps were selected for queuing analysis to assess conditions where the addition of project trips may result in hazards to road users. The study locations are listed below. 1. US 101/Produce Avenue (southbound off-ramp); and 2. US 101/South Airport Boulevard (northbound off-ramp). Table 20 presents weekday PM peak hour vehicle queues at the two US 101 off-ramp study locations for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions, and Table 21 presents weekday PM peak hour vehicle queues for Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The PM peak hour was selected as the analysis period because the project is a residential project and the majority of project-added off-ramp trips will be in the PM. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 212 May 2022 Therefore, the off-ramps queuing analysis during the PM peak hour is expected to encompass all potential impacts. Table 20 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) Existing Existing Plus Project Volume Queue Length (ft) Volume Queue Length (ft) 1. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue (PM Peak) Left 100 40 20 40 20 Right 620 361 50 367 50 2. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard (PM Peak) Left/Through 740 381 230 389 240 Right 740 271 40 271 40 Notes: Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. Table 21 Cumulative Weekday PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Volume Queue Length (ft) Volume Queue Length (ft) 1. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue (PM Peak) Left 100 40 20 40 20 Right 620 373 50 379 50 2. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard (PM Peak) Left/Through 740 455 300 488 345 Right 740 295 40 295 40 Notes: Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. The project would not extend or contribute to queues longer than storage distances at either off-ramp locations. Therefore, the project would not result in a hazardous condition at this location. For the cumulative scenario, the project would not extend or contribute to queues longer than storage distances at either off-ramp locations. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution of traffic in the cumulative scenario would not result in a hazardous condition at this location. The proposed project does not include any new geometric design features that cause hazards. Implementation of the shared driveway on Airport Boulevard would not change the existing roadway geometry. Sight distance at the proposed driveways is not expected to change from what is available under existing conditions, and any future vegetation located within the sight triangles at the driveway would be maintained so as not to restrict drivers’ sight distance when exiting the driveway. The project would generate new pedestrian and bicycle trips, particularly residents walking to downtown South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. Most residents are likely to walk along the east sidewalk on Airport Boulevard when traveling 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 213 May 2022 between the project site and the Caltrain Station; however, some residents may also travel along the west sidewalk, particularly when making trips to Downtown South San Francisco. Residents walking along the west sidewalk and bicyclists heading south to the project site will travel via Airport Boulevard through existing slip right-turn lanes at the northwest and northeast corners of the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce 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. However, based on assumed pedestrian and bicycle destinations and routing decisions (i.e., majority of downtown bound ped/bike trips would travel along east side of Airport Boulevard and cross at Baden Avenue or Grand Avenue, as the most direct route of travel), approximately two project trips are expected to use the north crosswalk during the peak hour. Because the project is only anticipated to generate approximately two trips during the peak hour, the project contribution would not represent a substantial increase to hazards at that location. Considering the proposed project is expected to increase pedestrian and bicycle trips to the shared driveway and easement road, the project could increase risk to pedestrians and bicyclists. The existing driveway and easement road were designed to accommodate frequent large trucks for warehouse land use, and the current design is not compatible with the proposed residential use. The current design promotes vehicles turning at relatively high speeds across pedestrian zones and longer exposure time for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project-added pedestrian and bicycle trips at the existing driveway represents a potentially significant impact related to hazards and mitigation is required. Redesigning the driveway and easement road to size them to an appropriate design for vehicles and for the proposed residential uses would reduce vehicle speeds, thereby (1) lowering the severity of collisions and (2) widening drivers’ vision cone of pedestrians and bicyclists to help prevent collisions from occurring. Driveway turning templates are included as Appendix E to the Transportation Impact Analysis. Turning templates show a passenger vehicle turning into the existing 70-foot-wide driveway at 20 miles per hour. With a narrower driveway, turning speeds are reduced to 5 miles per hour and provide a safer environment for pedestrians and bicycles. The turning templates also show that large delivery trucks are able to turn into the site with a narrower driveway. Implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure XIII-1 would encourage lower vehicle speeds on-site and provide shorter crossing distances for pedestrians, lowering the risk and severity of collisions. Therefore, without mitigation, the project could result in a potentially significant impact related to hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. d. Vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would represent a very small percentage of overall daily and peak hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the study area. As noted previously, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 49 AM peak hour and 74 PM peak hour net new vehicle trips, which are distributed to study intersections. Project- generated vehicle trips represent approximately one percent of entering volumes at study intersections during the peak hours. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include any features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities. Fire and police vehicles would continue to have access to facilities around the project area. Upon the commencement of construction activities, emergency vehicles would have full access to the project site. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 214 May 2022 Therefore, the project is expected not to result in inadequate emergency access, and the Project’s impacts related to resulting in inadequate 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 to a less-than- significant level (see question ‘c’). XIII-1 Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the project driveway and easement road shall be resized to an appropriate design vehicle (WB-40 trailer truck or smaller) with the intent of reducing the driveway and easement road widths, in consultation with City staff and City resources such as the City’s Complete Street Ordinance and the Downtown Plan. Findings A central goal of the Plan Bay Area is the combination of transportation and land use planning to decrease reliance on single-passenger vehicles, and increase the use of alternative means of transportation such as buses, trains, bicycles and walking. 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 resizes the driveway and easement road to reduce potential hazards. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b), which requires preparation and implementation of a TDM Plan, 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, with implementation of the aforementioned Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures and project- specific Mitigation Measure, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any additional environmental effects related to Transportation. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 215 May 2022 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 Native American Ohlone people are 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 216 May 2022 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 and State law would be required by the City of South San Francisco to 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 217 May 2022 • 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 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 for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. D. 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 Sections 7050.5 and 7052, and California PRC 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 218 May 2022 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 Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California PRC 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 219 May 2022 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 a commercial warehouse building 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’s (SFPUC’s) City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), and the SFPUC delivers Cal Water with surface water.82 The water provided to customers in South San Francisco comes primarily from purchased water from the SFPUC, and approximately 20 percent of the water supply is from groundwater. 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 UWMP, the South San Francisco District has a sufficient water supply during years under normal conditions. However, during one-year or multi-year droughts, shortfalls in water supply are projected. Under such 82 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 220 May 2022 conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan.83 Water mains currently exist in the north side of Airport Boulevard. 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 SWRCB, 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.84 An existing six-inch sewer main is located in Airport Boulevard. 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.85 A 12-inch force main extends within Airport Boulevard, and a stormwater catch basin and line exist in the shared driveway east of the project site. 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.86 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 exists in the immediate project vicinity. 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. 83 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2021. 84 Ibid. 85 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report. November 2017. 86 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 221 May 2022 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. 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. • 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 222 May 2022 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 individual project’s impacts related to water, sewer, and drainage improvements would be less than significant. As will be demonstrated below, 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 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 individual project’s impact related to water supplies would be less than significant. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 223 May 2022 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 normal 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 individual project’s impact related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. 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 Measures 2.12-1(b) and (c) and 2.12-3(b) and (c) only apply to transportation projects and, therefore, would not apply to the proposed project. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a), 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 224 May 2022 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. 2.12-2 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 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 225 May 2022 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. 2.12-4 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 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 226 May 2022 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 four-inch domestic water line and new six-inch fire service line would connect to the existing six-inch water main in Airport Boulevard. The project is anticipated to generate a water demand of approximately 720 gpm peak demand for domestic use and approximately 1,304 gpm for fire sprinkler service. Fire hydrants around the site would be required to provide approximately 2,875 gpm, as the proposed building would include an approved automatic fire protection system according to the California Fire Code and City of South San Francisco Fire requirements. Based on a Fire Flow Test conducted by Cal Water, the available fire flow at 20 psi is 6,335 gpm, which is sufficient to accommodate the 2,875 gpm requirement.87 In addition, Cal Water has submitted a Will Serve Letter, which indicates that Cal Water will provide water service to the proposed project.88 With regard to sanitary sewer service, the proposed project would include a new six-inch sewer lateral that would connect to the existing six-inch sewer main in Airport Boulevard. Following construction of the proposed project, the sewer flow directed to the main in Airport Boulevard from the project site is assumed to generate a Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow (MDDWF) of approximately 0.125 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow (MDWWF) of approximately 0.580 cfs. As compared to pre-project flows, the MDDWF would increase by approximately 512.5 percent, and the MDWWF would increase by approximately 513.5 percent. Based on a Sewer Capacity Memo prepared by BKF Engineers, the existing sewer main has sufficient capacity to accommodate MDDFW, but not MDWWF.89 Accordingly, as noted in the Project Description of this document, prior to construction of the proposed project, 230 lineal feet of sewer pipeline within Airport Boulevard would be upsized from six inches to eight inches in order to accommodate increased flows generated by the proposed project. The proposed upsizing would be sufficient to accommodate both the MDDWF and MDWWF. Implementation of the improvement by the project applicant would be ensured by the City as a project condition of approval. The construction activities associated with upsizing the sewer line would not result in any substantial environmental effects, as demonstrated by discussion throughout this SCEA. 87 BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Water Memo. September 3, 2021. 88 California Water Service. Will Serve Letter Tract or Parcel Map No: 015-126-010, 40 Airport Blvd, South San Francisco. September 2, 2021. 89 BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Sanitary Sewer Capacity. June 18, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 227 May 2022 A preliminary Stormwater Plan has been prepared for the proposed project. The project site would be divided into eight DMAs and associated treatment measures. Per the preliminary Stormwater Plan prepared for the proposed project, all proposed stormwater treatment measures would be sized to adequately handle all runoff from the associated DMAs. All stormwater would be treated on-site prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system. Electricity 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 Measures 2.12-1(b) and (c) and 2.12-3(b) and (c) only apply to transportation projects and, therefore, would not apply to the proposed project. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a), 2.12-4, and 2.12-5 apply to the project. Considering the project would have access to adequate infrastructure, the intent of the measures has already been fulfilled. 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. Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP projects future water demand based on population, housing, and employment projections developed by ABAG, rather than General Plan land use designations. Specifically, the 2020 UWMP references the Plan Bay Area 2040 regional projections. As evidenced by its consistency with the general projections included in the Plan Bay Area, the proposed project represents multi-family growth that is anticipated regionally. Thus, 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 2020 UWMP, Cal Water anticipates having sufficient water supply through 2045 during normal conditions, but foresees shortfalls following one-year or multi-year droughts, directly because of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment implementation. However, numerous uncertainties remain in the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. The water supply projections presented herein likely represent a worst-case scenario in which the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented without the SFPUC and the SWRCB reaching a Voluntary Agreement. SFPUC also provided water supply reliability projections without the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, which likely represents a highly optimistic water supply reliability outcome. These projections indicated that without the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment SFPUC would be able to supply 100 percent of projected Regional Water System (RWS) demands in all year types through 2045, except for the fourth and fifth consecutive dry year in 2045, during which 90 percent of projected RWS demands (85 percent of the Wholesale demands) would be met. The large disparity in projected water supply reliability between the two scenarios demonstrate the current level of uncertainty. Nonetheless, Cal Water has developed strategies and actions to address the projected dry year supply shortfalls, as well as a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which includes mandatory restrictions in water use during dry years. 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 228 May 2022 demand during dry years. Based on the 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.90 Based on the wastewater generation rates available in the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment, multi-family residential units produce an average of 120 gallons per day per bedroom. Considering the proposed project would include 598 bedrooms, the project would generate approximately 71,760 gallons per day, or 0.072 MGD of wastewater. The SSFWQCP is operating below capacity and can treat an additional 4 MGD, and the proposed project would generate approximately 0.072 MGD of wastewater. Thus, the SSFWQCP has sufficient capacity to treat the wastewater flows generated by the proposed project. With regard to wastewater conveyance, as part of the project, 230 lineal feet of sewer pipeline within Airport Boulevard would be upsized from six inches to eight inches in order to accommodate increased sanitary sewer flows generated by the proposed project. The proposed upsizing would be sufficient to accommodate both the MDDWF and MDWWF. Implementation of the improvement by the project applicant would be ensured by the City as a project condition of approval. As such, the existing wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, 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 3,328.8 pounds per day (876 residents X 3.8 pounds per day), or 1.7 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 0.04 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. 90 City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department. Water Quality Control Plant. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant. Accessed January 11, 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 229 May 2022 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), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a), 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. 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 230 May 2022 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.91 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, 91 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 231 May 2022 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.92 In addition, the project site is located within an urbanized area of the City and is bordered by existing development on all sides. 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 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. 92 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 232 May 2022 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 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 233 May 2022 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 the existing warehouse building and the construction of a new multi-family residential structure 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, 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 234 May 2022 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. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa- guidelines. Accessed April 25, 2022. 4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022. 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Available at: https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f 987b1071715daa65. Accessed May 2021. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Health Places Interactive Map. Available at: https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=51c2d0bc59244013 ad9d52b8c35cbf66. Accessed May 2021. 7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. May 2016. 8. BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Water Memo. September 3, 2021. 9. BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Sanitary Sewer Capacity. June 18, 2021. 10. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. 11. 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. 12. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017. 13. California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: State of California, County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle. June 15, 2009. 14. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008. 15. 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. 16. California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ. November 2018. 17. California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2021. 18. Castillo, Francisco J, Senior Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management. June 28, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 235 May 2022 19. City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department. Water Quality Control Plant. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant. Accessed January 11, 2022. 20. 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. 21. City of South San Francisco. Historic Preservation. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning- division/historic-preservation. Accessed April 2021. 22. City of South San Francisco. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. July 22, 2015. 23. City of South San Francisco. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan: Preferred Alternative. October 2020. Available at: https://shapessf.com/preferredalternative/. Accessed January 4, 2022. 24. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Housing Element 2015-2023. April 2015. 25. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update: Parks + Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. November 2019. 26. City/County Association of Government of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management Project 2019. April 9, 2019. 27. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November 2012. 28. County of San Mateo. County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Final Report, Published March 2018. 29. 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=CORTES E&site_type=CSITES. Accessed April, 2020. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F. April 5, 2019. 33. Fehr and Peers. 40 Airport Blvd Transportation Impact Analysis. April 2022. 34. Flores, Areana, Environmental Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [phone] with Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. April 5, 2021. 35. Flores, Areana, Environmental Planner, 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. 36. GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018. 37. Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. May 12, 2021. 38. Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. January 12, 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page 236 May 2022 39. M.S. Zuraimi and Zhongchao Tan. Impact of residential building regulations on reducing indoor exposures to outdoor PM2.5 in Toronto. March 14, 2015. 40. Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017. 41. Patricia Holroyd, Ph.D., Senior Museum Scientist at UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. Personal Communication [email] with Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician at Raney Planning & Management, Inc. March 18, 2021. 42. Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July 2012. 43. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. April 2021. 44. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, Version 1.0. January 2020. 45. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2. January 4, 2013. 46. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management Requirements: Information for Developers, Builders and Project Applicants. July 2016. 47. 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. 48. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. April 2021. 49. South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999. 50. Szeto, Lezlie Kimura, Manager, Sustainable Transportation & Communities Division, California Air Resources Board. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management. February 7, 2022. 51. Traverso Tree Service, Inc. Arborist Report for 40 Airport Blvd, South San Francisco. March 25, 2021. 52. 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 May 2021. 53. Weather Spark. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in South San Francisco California, United States. Available at: https://weatherspark.com/y/568/Average-Weather- in-South-San-Francisco-California-United-States-Year-Round. Accessed January 4, 2022. 54. 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 RESULTS APPENDIX C ARBORIST REPORT APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION APPENDIX E CAP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST APPENDIX F PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX G TECHNICAL NOISE STUDY APPENDIX H TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX I TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Exhibit A2 40 Airport Boulevard — SCEA Initial Study (SCEA-IS) List of Appendices (Click on Link below to Access) Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Modeling Results Appendix B – Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Results Appendix C – Arborist Report Appendix D – Geotechnical Investigation Appendix E – Climate Action Plan (CAP) Development Review Checklist Appendix F – Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Appendix G – Technical Noise Study Appendix H – Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Appendix I – Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan 40 Airport Blvd Project 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 40 Airport Blvd Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require Lead Agencies to adopt a program for monitoring the mitigation measures required to avoid the significant environmental impacts of a project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) ensures that mitigation measures imposed by the City are completed at the appropriate time in the development process. The mitigation measures identified in the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the 40 Airport Blvd Project include measures from the prior applicable environmental impact report (The Plan Bay Area Environmental Impact Report), as well as project-specific mitigation measures. In addition to listing all identified mitigation measures, the MMRP also provides the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure, the milestones for implementation and monitoring, and a sign-off that the mitigation measure has been implemented. Applicable mitigation measures from the Plan Bay Area Environmental Impact Report that have been incorporated into the 40 Airport Blvd Project Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21155.2, are distinguishable by the preceding letters “PBA”. 40 Airport Blvd Project 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off I. AIR QUALITY PBA 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 City of South San Francisco Planning Division Bay Area Air Quality Management District Prior to issuance of grading permits and during construction 40 Airport Blvd Project 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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 sweeping should only be performed in conjunction with thorough watering of the subject roads. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and s urfaces 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. 40 Airport Blvd Project 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off • 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. 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) City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans 40 Airport Blvd Project 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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 16 or higher, except the units that are located within or partially within the TAC Risk Area presented in Figure 13 [of the SCEA IS] shall install, operate and maintain HVAC systems that meet or exceed a minimum MERV of 16 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 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 40 Airport Blvd Project 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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. 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 dis covered 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. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to the issuance of any construction permits I-3. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk Assessors to complete and submit for review to the City’s Planning Division an asbestos and lead survey. If asbestos- containing materials or lead-containing materials are not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to asbestos-containing materials or lead containing materials shall not be required. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a work plan to demonstrate how the on-site asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with current California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Administration regulations and disposed of in accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior to the demolition City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any on-site structures 40 Airport Blvd Project 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off and/or removal of the on-site structures. The plan shall include the requirement that work shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding asbestos and lead training, engineering controls, and certifications. The applicant shall submit the work plan to the City’s Planning Division for review and approval. II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 comme nces 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 initiat ion of any ground disturbance. If active nests of migratory bir ds are not detected within approximately 250 feet of the project site, further mitigation is not required. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Within 14 days prior to site disturbance, if disturbance occurs during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st) 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 shall 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 ens ure 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. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Throughout the construction period, if nesting raptors or other migratory birds are detected on or adjacent to the site during the preconstruction survey 40 Airport Blvd Project 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off III. CULTURAL RESOURCES PBA 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 recomme ndations 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 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 City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, and throughout the construction period if any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archeological features or deposits are discovered 40 Airport Blvd Project 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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. IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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. City of South San Francisco Planning Division and/or City Engineer Prior to approval of construction permits 40 Airport Blvd Project 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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. V. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3. See Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3 See Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3 VII. NOISE PBA 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); • 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 City of South San Francisco Planning Division Throughout the construction period 40 Airport Blvd Project 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off • use cushion blocks to dampen impact noise from pile driving. PBA 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 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. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans 40 Airport Blvd Project 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off PBA 2.6-3(a). When finalizing development project site plans, noise-sensitive outdoor use areas shall be sited as far aw ay from adjacent noise sources as possible and site plans shall be designed to shield noise-sensitive spaces with buildings or noise barriers whenever possible. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans PBA 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. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans PBA 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. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans PBA 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 conducted during the less sensitive daytime hours (per the applicable local municipal code). Electrical generators or o ther 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 City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans 40 Airport Blvd Project 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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 nois e-sensitive receptors. PBA 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. City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans XIV. TRANSPORTATION PBA 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 City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prepare and submit a transportation construction plan prior to issuance of construction-related permits Implement best practice strategies throughout the 40 Airport Blvd Project 14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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 provid e 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. construction period XIII-1. Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the project driveway and easement road shall be resized to an appropriate design vehicle (WB-40 trailer truck or smaller) with the intent of reducing the driveway and easement road widths, in consultation with City staff and City resources such as the City’s Complete City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to approval of project improvement plans 40 Airport Blvd Project 15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off Street Ordinance and the Downtown Plan. XIV. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES PBA 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. • 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: City of South San Francisco Planning Division If the implementing agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource 40 Airport Blvd Project 16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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 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; and ▪ Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. C. 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. D. Protecting the resource. XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS PBA 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 t hat 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 City of South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to construction (i.e., construction waste management plan) and during the project lifetime 40 Airport Blvd Project 17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program June 2022 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 40 AIRPORT BLVD PROJECT Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign-off 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).