Agenda packet — Colma City Council, March 23, 2022 (part 6 of 6)

June 5, 2020

Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma
1198 El Camino Real
Colma, CA 94116

Re: 2020069005, Town of Colma General Plan Update Project, San Mateo County

Dear Ms. Choudhuri:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

7/2/2020

Page 2 of 5 ends

AB 52

AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:

Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.

Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).

2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).

3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).

6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).

Page 3 of 5 ends

7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).

8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).

9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).

10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. 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:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. 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. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).

11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).

The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf

Page 4 of 5 ends

SB 18

SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf.

Some of SB 18’s provisions include:

1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).

2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).

4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).

Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments

To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

Page 5 of 5 ends

3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.

4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Nancy.Gonzalez- [email protected].

Sincerely,

Nancy Gonzalez-Lopez
Staff Services Analyst

cc: State Clearinghouse

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5528
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

July 13, 2020

Anna Chaudhuri
Town of Colma, Planning Department
1198 El Camino Real,
Colma, CA 94014
SCH #2020069005
GTS #04-SM-2020-00322
GTS ID: 19638
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/82/22.588

Town of Colma General Plan Update- Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report
Dear Anna Chaudhuri:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Town of Colma General Plan Update NOP. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the June 2020 NOP.

Project Understanding
The Town of Colma General Plan is a long-range plan that directs decision making and establishes rules and standards for town improvements and new development. It reflects the community's vision for the future and is intended to provide direction through the year 2040. The last General Plan Update was in 1999. The 2040 General Plan update will provide the context to effectively plan and manage the Town of Colma based on an updated set of goals, policies, and implementation programs that reflect the values and aspirations for the future expressed by the community. Additionally, the update will equip the Town of Colma with a policy framework to responsibly manage future projects and have the capacity to accommodate the growth and development anticipated to occur in the Town for the next 20 years. The Town is centrally bisected by State Route (SR)-82 and the intersection of Highway (HWY)-1 and Interstate (I)- 280.
7/2/2020
Anna Chaudhuri, Planning Dept
July 13, 2020

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Travel Demand Analysis
Please note that a travel demand analysis that provides a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis is required as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focusing on transportation infrastructure that supports smart growth using efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, multimodal improvements, and VMT as the primary transportation impact metric. The travel demand analysis should include:
• A VMT analysis pursuant to the City’s guidelines or, if the City has no guidelines, the Office of Planning and Research’s Guidelines. Projects that result in automobile VMT per capita above the threshold of significance for existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use types may indicate a significant impact. If necessary, mitigation for increasing VMT should be identified. Mitigation should support the use of transit and active transportation modes. Potential mitigation measures that include the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally- binding instruments under the control of the City.
• A schematic illustration of walking, biking and auto conditions in the plan area and area roadways. Potential safety issues for all road users should be identified and fully mitigated.
• The plan’s primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicycles, travelers with disabilities and transit performance should be evaluated, including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. Access to pedestrians, bicycle, and transit facilities must be maintained.

Transportation Impact Fees
The City should identify any generated travel demand and estimate the costs of transit and active transportation improvements necessitated by the proposed plan; viable funding sources such as the City’s existing development and/or transportation impact fee programs should also be identified. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multimodal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT.

The City should also ensure that a capital improvement plan identifying the cost of needed improvements, funding sources, and a scheduled plan for implementation is prepared along with the General Plan. Caltrans welcomes the Anna Chaudhuri, Planning Dept
July 13, 2020

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
opportunity to work with the City and local partners to secure the funding for needed mitigation. Traffic mitigation- or cooperative agreements are examples of such measures.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Laurel Sears at (510)286-5614 or [email protected]
. Additionally, for future notifications
and requests for review of new projects, please contact [email protected].

Sincerely,

Mark Leong
District Branch Chief
Local Development - Intergovernmental Review

cc: State Clearinghouse

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 26, 2020

Ms. Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma Planning Department
1198 El Camino Real
Colma, CA 94014
[email protected]
Subject: Town of Colma General Plan Update, Notice of Preparation, SCH No. 2020069005, Town of Colma, San Mateo County
Dear Anna Choudhuri,
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) prepared by the Town of Colma for the Town of Coma General Plan Update (Project) located in the County of San Mateo. CDFW is submitting comments on the NOP regarding potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the Project.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources (e.g., biological resources). CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act, the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program, and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project will update the Town of Colma’s 1999 General Plan with goals, policies, and implementation programs for future projects within the Town of Colma. The Project will include proposed projects through the year 2040 and focus on land use, circulation/transportation, housing, natural resources/conservation, hazards and safety, and historic resources.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the Town of Colma in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on biological resources.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A5AB10F7-A37C-4139-86B2-127912133637

Ms. Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma Planning Department
June 26, 2020

Page 2 of 6 ends

COMMENT 1: Artificial Lighting
Issue: The Project could increase artificial lighting. Artificial lighting often results in light pollution, which has the potential to significantly and adversely affect biological resources.

Evidence the impact would be significant: Night lighting can disrupt the circadian rhythms of many wildlife species. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song; Miller 2006), determining when to begin foraging (Stone et al. 2009), behavior thermoregulation (Beiswenger 1977), and migration (Longcore and Rich 2004). Aquatic species can also be affected, for example, salmonids migration can be slowed or stopped by the presence of artificial lighting (Tabor et al. 2004, Nightingale et al. 2006).

Recommendations to minimize significant impacts: CDFW recommends eliminating all non-essential artificial lighting. If artificial lighting is necessary, CDFW recommends avoiding or limiting the use of artificial lights during the hours of dawn and dusk, when many wildlife species are most active. CDFW also recommends that outdoor lighting be shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upwards into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/).

COMMENT 2: Exterior Windows
Issue: The glass used for exterior building windows could result in bird collisions, which can cause bird injury and mortality.

Evidence the impact would be significant: Birds, typically, do not see clear or reflective glass, and can collide with glass (e.g., windows) that reflect surrounding landscape and/or habitat features (Klem and Saenger 2013, Sheppard 2019). When birds collide with glass, they can be injured or killed. In the United States, the estimated annual bird mortality is between 365-988 million birds (Loss et al. 2014).

Recommendations to minimize significant impacts: CDFW recommends incorporating visual signals or cues to exterior windows to prevent bird collisions. Visual signals or cues include, but are not limited to, patterns to break up reflective areas, external window films and coverings, ultraviolet patterned glass, and screens. For best practices on how to reduce bird collisions with windows, please go to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s website for Buildings and Glass (https://www.fws.gov/birds/ bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/buildings-and-glass.php).

COMMENT 3: Stream Hydromodification
Issue: The Project could increase impervious surfaces within the Project area.

Impervious surfaces, stormwater systems, and storm drain outfalls have the potential to DocuSign Envelope ID: A5AB10F7-A37C-4139-86B2-127912133637

Ms. Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma Planning Department
June 26, 2020

Page 3 of 6 ends

significantly affect fish and wildlife resources by altering runoff hydrograph and natural streamflow patterns.

Evidence the impact would be significant: Urbanization (e.g., impervious surfaces, stormwater systems, storm drain outfalls) can modify natural streamflow patterns by increasing the magnitude and frequency of high flow events and storm flows (Hollis 1975, Konrad and Booth 2005).

Recommendations to minimize significant impacts: CDFW recommends that storm runoff be dispersed as sheet flow through the property rather than funneled to stormwater outfalls. CDFW also recommends incorporating permeable surfaces throughout the Project area to allow stormwater to percolate in the ground and prevent stream hydromodification.

COMMENT 4: Special-Status Species Surveys
CDFW recommends that before future project implementation, special-status species surveys be conducted for species that have the potential to occur or will be impacted by the project implementation. CDFW recommends, if available, using established species survey protocols.

Survey and monitoring protocols and guidelines are available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols.

COMMENT 5: Nesting Birds
Issue: Project construction could result in disturbance of nesting birds.

Evidence the impact would be significant: Noise can impact bird behavior by masking signals used for bird communication, mating, and hunting (Bottalico et al. 2015). Birds hearing can also be damaged from noise and impair the ability of birds to find or attract a mate and prevent parents from hearing calling young (Ortega 2012).

Recommendations to minimize significant impacts: If ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities occur during the bird breeding season (February through early-September), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result in violation of Fish and Game Codes.

To evaluate and avoid for potential impacts to nesting bird species, CDFW recommends incorporating the following mitigation measures into the Project’s draft EIR, and that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A5AB10F7-A37C-4139-86B2-127912133637

Ms. Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma Planning Department
June 26, 2020

Page 4 of 6 ends

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: Nesting Bird Surveys
CDFW recommends that a qualified avian biologist conduct pre-Project activity nesting bird surveys no more than seven (7) days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance, and every 14 days during Project activities to maximize the probability that nests are detected. CDFW recommends that nesting bird surveys cover a sufficient area around the Project area to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by the Project.

During nesting bird surveys, CDFW recommends that a qualified avian biologist establish behavioral baseline of all identified nests. During Project activities, CDFW recommends having the qualified avian biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from Project activities. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends stopping the activity, that is causing the behavioral change, and consulting with a qualified avian biologist on additional avoidance and minimization measures.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: Nesting Bird Buffers
During Project activities, if continuous monitoring of nests by a qualified avian biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 1,000-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified avian biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project area would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified avian biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
Please be advised that a CESA Permit must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit.

CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species (CEQA section 21001(c), 21083, and CEQA Guidelines section 15380, 15064, 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less- DocuSign Envelope ID: A5AB10F7-A37C-4139-86B2-127912133637

Ms. Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma Planning Department
June 26, 2020

Page 5 of 6 ends

than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC). The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with Fish and Game Code section 2080.

Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program
Notification is required, pursuant to CDFW’s LSA Program (Fish and Game Code section 1600 et. seq.) for any Project-related activities that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are subject to notification requirements. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the Project. CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) as the responsible agency.

FILING FEES
CDFW anticipates that the Project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary (Fish and Game Code section 711.4; Pub.

Resources Code, section 21089). Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Project’s NOP. If you have any questions regarding this letter or for further coordination with CDFW, please contact Ms. Monica Oey, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 428-2088 or [email protected]; or Ms. Randi Adair, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Gregg Erickson
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region

REFERENCES
Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A5AB10F7-A37C-4139-86B2-127912133637

Ms. Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma Planning Department
June 26, 2020

Page 6 of 6 ends

Bottalico, Pasquale & Spoglianti, Dorina & Bertetti, Carlo & Falossi, Marco. 2015. Effect of noise generated by construction sites on birds, paper presented at Internoise 2015, International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering.

Hollis, G. 1975. The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval.

Water Resources Research 11:431-435.

Klem, D. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Select Visual Signals to Prevent Bird-window Collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125(2):406-411.

Konrad, C.P. and D.B. Booth. 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance, paper presented at American Fisheries Society Symposium, American Fisheries Society.

Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.

Loss, S.R., T. Will, S.S. Loss, and P.P. Marra. 2014. Bird-building collisions in the United States: estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor 116: 8-23.

Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130–139.

Ortega, C. P. 2012. Chapter 2: Effects of noise pollution on birds: A brief review of our knowledge. Ornithological Monographs 47: 6-22.

Sheppard, C. D. 2019. Evaluating the relative effectiveness of patterns on glass as deterrents of bird collisions with glass. Global Ecology and Conservation 20:e00795.

Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats.

Current Biology 19:1123–1127. Elsevier Ltd.

Tabor, R. A., G. S. Brown, and V. T. Luiting. 2004. The effect of light intensity on sockeye salmon fry migratory behavior and predation by cottids in the Cedar River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:128– 145.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A5AB10F7-A37C-4139-86B2-127912133637 1 Laurel Mathews
From: Hallare, Jason <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:16 AM
To: Anna Choudhuri
Subject: NOP EIR - Colma General Plan
Hi Anna,

S
SF has reviewed the NOP you sent us and take no issue with the scope and content presented.

Thank you,

J
ason Hallare, P.E. | S enior Engineer
City of South San Francisco | Engineering Division
315 Maple Avenue | South San Francisco, CA 94080
Direct (650) 829-6667 | Engineering Webpage

To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.Census

1 Laurel Mathews
From: Fong, Lynn S <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 2:58 PM
To: Anna Choudhuri
Cc: CDD Engineering
Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) response from CCSF CDD Engineering Attachments: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Town of Colma 06-3-2020.pdf Hello Anna, The SFPUC City Distribution Division (CDD) Engineering Section has reviewed the Draft E
nvironmental Impact Report for the Town of Colma. CDD Engineering does not have any comments due to the fact that the limits identified on the project location map falls outside of the SF City Distribution Division (CDD) jurisdiction. The jurisdiction line is located that the CCSF City and County limits.

Thank you,

Lynn S. N. Fong, P.E.

C
ity Distribution Division
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Phone: 415 550-4922
[email protected]

375 BEALE STREET , SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO CA • 94105 • 415.771.6000 • www.baaqmd.gov

June 26, 2020

Mr. Michael P. Laughlin, AICP, City Planner
Planning Department
Town of Colma
1198 El Camino Real
Colma, CA 94014

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the To wn of Colma 2040 General Plan Update – Notice of Preparation

Dear Mr. Laughlin,

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report for the Town of Colma 2040 Gene ral Plan Update (Plan). The Town of Colma intends to prepare a programmatic EIR to evaluat e the environmental issues associated with the adoption and buildout of the Plan for Land Use, Circulation/Transportation, Housing, Natural Resources/Conservation, Ha zards and Safety, and Historic Resources.

Air District staff recommends the EIR include the following information and analysis:
• Provide a detailed analysis of the Plan’s potential effects on local and regional air quality. The EIR sho uld include a discussi on of the Air District’s attainment status for all criteria pollutants and the implications for the region if these standards are not attained or maintained by statutory deadlines. The Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which provide guidance o n h ow to evaluate a Plan’s construction, operational, and cumulative air quality impacts, can be found on the Air District’s website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-
and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa- guidelines.
• Estimate and evaluate the potential health risk to populations within and near the Plan area from toxic air contaminants (TAC) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as a result of the Plan’s construction and operation. Air District staff recommends that the EIR evaluate potential cum ulative health risk impacts of TAC and PM2.5 emissions on sensitive receptors within and near the Plan area. Additionally, Air District staff recommend s going beyond current building codes for air filtration, when considering exposure reduction measures.

ALAMEDA COUNTY
John J. Bauters
Pauline Russo Cutter
Scott Haggerty
Nate Miley

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
John Gioia
David Hudson
Karen Mitchoff
(Secretary)
Mark Ross

MARIN COUNTY
Katie Rice

NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
VACANT
Shamann Walton
Tyrone Jue
(SF Mayor’s Appointee)

SAN MATEO COUNTY
David J. Canepa
Carole Groom
Davina Hurt

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Margaret Abe-Koga
Cindy Chavez
(Vice Chair)
Liz Kniss
Rod G. Sinks
(Chair)

SOLANO COUNTY
James Spering
Lori Wilson

SONOMA COUNTY
Teresa Barrett
Shirlee Zane

Jack P. Broadbent

EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO

Town of Colma 6/26/20

Page 2 ends

• The GHG impact analysis should include an evaluation of the Plan’s consistency with the most recent draft of the California Air Resources Board ’s AB 32 Scoping Plan and with the State’s 2030 and 2050 climate goals outlined in SB32, as well as the State’s Carbon Neutrality by 2045 goals, SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018, and Executive Order B- 55-18. The Air District’s current recommended GHG thresholds in our CEQA Guidelines are based on the State’s 2020 GHG targets, which are now superseded by the 2030 GHG targets established in SB 32. The EIR should demonstrate how the Plan will be consistent with the Scoping Plan, SB32, SB100 and Executive Order B-55-18. • Identify and include all feasible Plan-level design features to reduce potential impacts of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs. Chapter 9, Section 6, of the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provi des recommended mitigation measures and policies for general plans.
• Evaluate the Plan’s consistency with the Air District’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The EIR should discuss 2017 CAP measures relevant to the Plan and show the Plan’ s consistency with the measures. The 2017 CAP can be found on the Air District’s website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-
quality-plans/current-plans.
• The Air District’s CE QA website contains several tools and resources to assist lead agencies in analyzing air qual ity and GHG impacts. The tools can be found on the Air District’s website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. • Discuss how the Plan will address Senate Bill 1000 (SB1000), the Planning for Healthy Communities Act. SB1000, which be came effective Janu ary 1, 2018, requires all California jurisdictions to consider environmental justice issues in their General Plans. Environmental justice (EJ), as defined by the State, focuses on disproportionate and adverse human health impacts that af fect low income and m inority communities already suffering from cumulative and legacy environmental and health impacts. Although the Town of Colma has not identified any disadvantaged communities and does not plan to add an Environmental J ustice element, t he Air District sup ports the Town of Colma’s efforts to integrate environmental justice policies into the Plan.

Town of Colma 6/26/20

Page 3 ends

We encourage Town of Colma staff to contact Air District staff with any questions and/or to request assistance during the environmental review process. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kelly Malinowski, Senior Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-8673 or [email protected]

Sincerely,

Greg Nudd
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer

cc: BAAQMD Director David J. Canepa
BAAQMD Director Carole Groom
BAAQMD Director Davina Hurt
Ms. Anna Choudhuri, Planning Department, Town of Colma

1 Laurel Mathews
From: Michael Laughlin (Colma Contractor) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Kelly Malinowski
Cc: Areana Flores; Anna Choudhuri
Subject: RE: Town of Colma General Plan NOP: an additional question Hi Kelly – Yes, it was CalEnviorScreen 3.

F
or the GP buildout, the numbers you list below are possible totals. However, these are not the net totals when you consider the buildout potential of the current General Plan. Net numbers would be:

Residential: 256
Commercial: 828,000
Office: -49,000 (existing GP is 84,000 sf. and new GP is 35,000. Office square footage was shifted to more general commercial in new GP assumptions)

Sincerely,

Michael P. Laughlin, AICP
City Planner, CSG Consultants
[email protected]
650.757.8888 main
650.757.8896 direct
65 0.757.8890 fax

From: Kelly Malinowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 12:12 PM
To: Michael Laughlin (Colma Contractor) <[email protected]> Cc: Areana Flores <[email protected]>; Anna Choudhuri <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Town of Colma General Plan NOP: an additional question

Hi Michael,

T
hanks for the quick response on this, I enjoyed talking with you too! All sounds good and makes sense regarding SB1000.

Just 2 quick clarifying questions:
• Which resource did you consult RE: disadvantaged communities? Was it CalEnviroScreen 3.0? • For the improvements included in the update (below), are these all new? 2 o "Specifically, the update will include: 328 residential units, 993,500 square feet of commercial building space, and 35,000 square feet of office building space[WG1] ." I am not sure if we will end up sending a letter officially, but I will let you know either way next week once our Director i s back in the office, and can send info. we would have sent in the letter via email, if helpful, if we don't end up sending an official letter.

Th
anks again Michael for all of this help, hope you are having a good rest of your week! Kelly

Kelly Malinowski, MPA | Senior Environmental Planner
Planning and Climate Protection Division
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Office: 415-749-8673

From: Michael Laughlin (Colma Contractor) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 8:18 AM
To: Kelly Malinowski <[email protected]>
Cc: Areana Flores <[email protected]>; Anna Choudhuri <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Town of Colma General Plan NOP: an additional question

Hi Kelly – I enjoyed talking with you the other day! Colma is small, with just over 450 residential units, which are located primarily in the north part of the town, just east of the Colma BART station. From all of the resources I have consulted, Colma does not have any areas of the town which are disadvantaged communities (although the area north of the BART station in unincorporated San Mateo County and in Daly City do have some disadvantaged communities). We are not planning to prepare a separate Environmental Justice element (since there would not be much to say). Instead, we will be incorporating policies in the plan to satisfy our SB1000 requirements.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Michael P. Laughlin, AICP
City Planner, CSG Consultants

Town of Colma
Pl
anning Department
1198 El Camino Real, Colma, CA 94014
www.colma.ca.gov
[email protected]
650.757.8888 main
650.757.8896 di rect
650.757.8890 f ax
Colma Green!

3 From: Kelly Malinowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:58 PM
To: Michael Laughlin (Colma Contractor) <[email protected]> Cc: Areana Flores <[email protected]>
Subject: Town of Colma General Plan NOP: an additional question

Hi Michael,

Thanks so much for your call the other day to touch base on the Town of Colma General Plan NOP, and our q
uestion of your planned location for housing. Thanks also for sharing my enthusiasm and interest about the Town!

I wanted to reach back out with one more clarifying question, regarding SB1000, legislation directing cities to include identification of disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the General Plan, to either adopt an Environmental Justice element, or incorporate Environmental Justice goals and policies into other elements of the General Plan.

Do you know yet if you have any identified disadvantaged communities, and if you plan to include this e
lement or these types of goals? I know the Town is small, and might not have any disadvantaged communities as identified by the state, so wanted to check-in before including this type of recommendation in the forthcoming letter.

Thanks so much for your time with this question, and if easier to discuss on the phone, I'm free tomorrow a
nytime before 2:30p or after 4:30p if helpful.

Thanks Michael!
Kelly

Kelly Malinowski, MPA | Senior Environmental Planner
Planning and Climate Protection Division
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Office: 415-749-8673

Appendix B

CSG Consultants, Inc T own of Colma General Plan Update December 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Appendix B
Notices to Tribes

Appendix B contains a letter identifying all tribes that the lead agency must notify under SB 18 and AB 52, a
nd the letters that were sent to those tribes with notice of the EIR.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE A MERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 5 ends

June 5, 2020

Anna Choudhuri
Town of Colma
1198 El Camino Real
Colma, CA 94116

Re: 2020069005, Town of Colma General Plan Update Project, San Mateo County

Dear Ms. Choudhuri:

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

7/2/2020

Page 2 of 5 ends

AB 52

AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:

Page 3 of 5 ends

Page 4 of 5 ends

SB 18

Some of SB 18’s provisions include:

2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments

Page 5 of 5 ends

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Nancy.Gonzalez- [email protected].

Sincerely,

Nancy Gonzalez-Lopez
Staff Services Analyst

cc: State Clearinghouse

1.0 INTRODUCTION
CSG Consultants, Inc 1.0-1 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
This Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR; F PEIR; FEIR ) has been prepared by the Town of Colma (Town; town ) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines (Section §15132). This FEIR assesses the expected environmental impacts resulting from project approval and associated impacts from subsequent implementation of the proposed Town of Colma 2040 General Plan Update (2040 GPU) project, responds to comments received on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft P EIR; DPEIR; DEIR), and includes revisions to the text in the Draft EIR made in response to comments. The Town, serving as the Lead Agency, prepared the Program EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the 2040 GPU. As set forth in the provisions of the State CEQA guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty to consider the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to minimize these impacts where feasible. The Draft EIR identified significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project and examined alternatives and recommended mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce potential impacts. This document, together with the Draft EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), will collectively constitute the Final EIR if the Town of Colma C ity Council certifies it as adequate and complete under CEQA.

The T
own of Colma’s 2040 General Plan Update will serve as a policy guide for how the Town will make important planning decisions in the future that will guide the town’s future development. It is therefore the predominant policy document that will future land use, housing, circulation , open space and community services throughout the t own for the next 20 years. The town’s GPU includes the seven elements mandated by State law, though these have been consolidated into the following six elements in the GPU document:
• Community Safety and Services Element (which include Noise) • Historic Resources Element
• Housing Element
• Land Use Element
• Mobility Element
• Open Space and Conservation Element
The
2040 GPU sets the goals and policies for the issue areas related to Community Safety and Services (including Noise), Historic Resources, Land Use, Mobility and Open Space and Conservation. The Housing Element was last updated and adopted on January 14, 2015 and was thus not updated under the 2040 GPU.

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR
Overview of CEQA Requirements for Preparation of an EIR State CEQA Guidelines Section § 15121(a) states that an EIR is an informational document for decision- makers and the general public t o analyze the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, identify actions to minimize potential significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. Public agencies with discretionary authority are therefore required to consider the information in the EIR, alon g with all other relevant information, in making decisions on the proposed project.

For t
he purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]). With respect to the Town of Colma 2040 GPU, the Town has determined that the proposed action is a "project" within the definition of CEQA.

Attachment D

1.0 INTRODUCTION

CSG Consultants, Inc 1.0-2 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Review Process for the Proposed Project
The following is an overview of the environmental review process for the Town of Colma’s 2040 GPU project that has led to the preparation of this FEIR:

Notice of Preparation
In accordance with Section §15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Town prepared and released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of this EIR on June 3, 2020. The NOP was sent to all applicable responsible and trustee agencies and the Office of Planning and Research’s State Clearinghouse (SCH, Number 2020-069005). The NOP and full text of responses to the NOP has been presented in Appendix A and B of the DEIR. After filing the NOP, a public scoping session was held on June 24, 2020.

Draft Program EIR
The Draft PEIR was released for public and agency review from December 6, 2021 to January 25, 2022. The DPEIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives. A Notice of Completion (NOC) for the DEIR, was submitted to the SCH on December 3, 2021. The Town held a hearing during the public review period, on December 8, 2021, to take testimony on the 2040 GPU and Draft PEIR.

Final EIR
The Town did not receive any comment letters from agencies and interest groups regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR). Therefore, no substantial changes were made to the DPEIR. This document and the DPEIR, as amended herein, constitute the FEIR.

Sections §15089 and § 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency to prepare a Final EIR before approving a project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section § 15132, a Final EIR must contain the following:
• the Draft EIR or any revisions to the Draft EIR;
• a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; • responses to any comments and recommendations on the Draft EIR; and, • any other information added by the Lead Agency since the public availability of the Draft EIR.

Public Resources Code Section § 21081.6 also requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program describing measures to be adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment . Therefore, this FEIR also includes a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project, which is included as Section 5.0.

Certification of the Final EIR

The Town of C olma will review and consider the FEIR and if it finds that the FEIR is "adequate and complete", the Towns may certify the FEIR. The EIR can be certified if: 1) it shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project regarding its environmental consequences.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

CSG Consultants, Inc 1.0-3 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Upon review and consideration of the FEIR, the Town of Colma may take action to approve, revise, or reject the proposed 2040 GPU and EIR . If approved, the FEIR will be supplemented with written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section § 15091 and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section §15093.

1.2 TYPE OF DOCUMENT

This document has been prepared as a Program EIR in order to address the actions proposed for the Town of Colma 2040 GPU project. A Program EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section §15168) is appropriate for land use decision -making at a broad level that contemp lates further project-level review of subsequent individual development proposals. Since the Town is not processing any specific development requests as part of this environmental analysis, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section §15168, the D PEIR and FPEIR evaluate future development to be allowed under the proposed General Plan Update, at a program- level. Any future subsequent development in this area will require project applicants to conduct a site - specific analysis for each development project’s potential impacts, particularly with respect to that project’s compliance with the analysis set forth in this GPU EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section §15168 and §15183).

1.3 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

The EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project and is to be used to modify, approve, or deny the proposed project based on the analysis in the EIR. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section §15126, this EIR should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the 2040 General Plan Update.

1.4 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR
This document is organized in the following manner:

SECTION 1.0—INTRODUCTION
Section 1.0 provides an overview of the EIR process to date and the required contents for the FEIR.

SECTION 2.0—COMMENTS AND REVISIONS
Section 2.0 includes the comment s received and the DPEIR as revised by this FEIR. As noted previously, there were no comments submitted on the Draft EIR. The revisions to the Draft EIR consists of response to comments as well as minor staff edits. The revisions do not change the intent or content of the analysis or mitigation.

SECTION 3.0—REPORT PREPARERS
Section 3.0 provides a list of authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

SECTION 4.0—MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 4.0 is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) used to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the 2040 General Plan Update. The MMRP includes the responsible parties, implementation, reporting and timing of each mitigation measure.

2.0 COMMENTS AND REVISIONS TO THE DEIR

CSG Consultants, Inc 2.0-1 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Draft Progra m Environmental Impact Report (Draft P EIR; DPEIR; DEIR) for the proposed project were raised during the public review period for the DEIR. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section §15088.5.

2.1 COMMENTS ON THE DEIR AND RESPONSES
Requirements for Responding to Comments on a Draft EIR
State CEQA Guidelines Section §15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on the DEIR and prepare a written response. The written response must address the significant environmental issue raised and must provide a detailed response, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response, if required. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines §15204).

State CEQA Guidelines Section § 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed c omments, with relevant explanation and evidence, that focus on the sufficiency of the DEIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section §15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a conclusion.

State CEQA Guidelines Section § 15088 also recommends that where a response to c omments results in revisions to the DEIR, that those revisions be incorporated as a revision to the DEIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR.

Summary of Comments Received

The Draft EIR was circulated for a 50-day public review period that began on December 6, 2021 and ended on January 25, 2022. The city extended the period until January 28, 2022 to ensure that mail post -marked by January 25, 2022 would be received. The city received no written comment letters during this period.

Therefore, there are no comments to list or responses to provide.

2.2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

1.0 Executive Summary
No changes were made to Chapter 1.0 of the DEIR.

2.0 Introduction
No changes were made to Chapter 2.0 of the DEIR.

3.0 Project Description
No changes were made to Chapter 3.0 of the DEIR.

2.0 COMMENTS AND REVISIONS TO THE DEIR

CSG Consultants, Inc 2.0-2 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report

4.1 Aesthetics
No changes were made to Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR.

4.2 Air Quality
No changes were made to Chapter 4.2 of the DEIR.

4.3 Biological Resources
No changes were made to Chapter 4.3 of the DEIR.

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Resources
No changes were made to Chapter 4.4 of the DEIR.

4.5 Energy
No changes were made to Chapter 4.5 of the DEIR.

4.6 Geology and Soils
No changes were made to Chapter 4.6 of the DEIR.

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No changes were made to Chapter 4.7 of the DEIR.

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No changes were made to Chapter 4.8 of the DEIR.

4.9 Hydrology
No changes were made to Chapter 4.9 of the DEIR.

4.10 Land Use Planning
No changes were made to Chapter 4.10 of the DEIR.

4.11 Noise
No changes were made to Chapter 4.11 of the DEIR.

4.12 Population and Housing
No changes were made to Chapter 4.12 of the DEIR.

4.13 Public Services and Recreation
No changes were made to Chapter 4.13 of the DEIR.

4.14 Transportation
No changes were made to Chapter 4.14 of the DEIR.

4.15 Utilities
No changes were made to Chapter 4.15 of the DEIR.

2.0 COMMENTS AND REVISIONS TO THE DEIR

CSG Consultants, Inc 2.0-3 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report

4.16 Wildfires
No changes were made to Chapter 4.16 of the DEIR.

5.0 Cumulative Impacts Summary
No changes were made to Chapter 5.0 of the DEIR.

6.0 Project Alternatives
No changes were made to Chapter 6.0 of the DEIR.

7.0 Report Preparers
No changes were made to Chapter 7.0 of the DEIR.

3.0 REPORT PREPARERS

CSG Consultants, Inc Page 3.0-1 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report

3.1 TOWN OF COLMA

City Manager Brian Dossey

General Plan Manager Michael Laughlin
Farhad Mortazavi

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING TEAM

CSG CONSULTANTS

EIR Project Manager Anna Choudhuri
Michael Laughlin
Farhad Mortazavi

Environmental Planners/GIS Shehriyar Khan
Jonathan Kwan
Laurel Mathews

SUB-CONSULTANTS

ASM Affiliates Ted Bibby
Deanna Keegan

CSDA Design Group Randy Waldeck, P.E.

Kittleson & Associates, Inc Matt Braughton
Damian Stefanakis

PlaceWorks Inc. Andrea Howard
Joanna Jansen

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-1 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section §15097 requires a public agency to adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the measures the public agency has required in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This requirement ensures that all environmental impacts found to be potentially significant or significant and unavoidable, are avoided or reduced as feasible to a proposed project. This mitigation and monitoring program (MMRP) has been developed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15097 to ensure that the mitigation measures established in the Town of Colma 2040 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report are properly implemented, reported on, and monitored, per State law.

The objectives of this MMRP are then to:
• verify that each identified mitigation measure has been implemented; • assign responsibility for the monitoring and reporting of each mitigation measure ; • stipulate the procedure to identify the appropriate enforcement actions’ • identify areas, if any, of non-compliance; and,
• record the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and,

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN

The Town of Colma , serving as the Lead Agency, is responsible for ensuring total compliance with t he mitigation measures adopted for the 2040 General Plan Update EIR. The Town will monitor and report on all required mitigation activities according to Table 4.0.1:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Checklist. If, during project implementation, any of the identified mitigation measures cannot be implemented or appropriately monitored, and/or changes to the mitigation measures are required, the Town shall inform the affected responsible agency(s). The Town of Colma shall then in coordination with the affected responsible agencies, make the determination to make the appropriate modifications, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures, develop alternative feasible mitigation measures, or re - assign monitoring and reporting responsibilities. All changes to this MMRP shall be in accordance with Public Resources Code §21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines §15162.

Table 4.0.1 presents the implementation plan, mitigation timing, and reporting/monitoring responsibilities for the mitigation measures that would be required under the 2040 GPU EIR:

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-2 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 4.0.1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsibility
And Timing
Implementation
Monitoring

4.2 AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2.2: The project would
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
criteria pollutants for which the
project region is in non-
attainment under applicable
federal or State ambient air
quality standard.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1:

As part of the town’s development approval process, the town of Colma shall require applicants for future development projects to comply with the current BAAQMD basic control measures for fugitive dust control, including:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
• Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust. • Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material. • Hydroseed or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
• Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

Implementation:

Town of Colma
Building
Department or
Planning
Department

Timing: Prior to
issuance of any
construction permit
Confirm that all
construction
plans submitted
incorporate all
applicable
mitigation
measures.

Initials: ________

Date: __________
Impact 4.2.2: The project would
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
criteria pollutants for which the
project region is in non-
attainment under applicable
federal or State ambient air
quality standard.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2:

Prior to issuance of building permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and exceed the screening sizes in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the town of Colma a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts.

The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with the BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the town shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds to the extent feasible. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate Responsibility:

Town of Colma
Building
Department

Timing: During
construction
activities
Confirm that
technical
assessment has
been submitted
and identified
measures are
incorporated into
construction
documents.

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-3 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsibility
And Timing
Implementation
Monitoring
construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the town of Colma and shall be verified by the Town’s Building Division and/or Planning Division

Initials: ________

Date: __________
Impact 4.2.3: The project could
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations
Mitigation Measure AQ-3:

Applicants for construction within 1,000 feet of residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers) in the town of Colma, as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the town prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the BAAQMD. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age-sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children ages 0 to 16 years. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include, but are not limited to:
• During construction, use construction equipment rated as US EPA Tier 4 Interim for equipment of 50 horsepower or more.
• During construction, use of construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.

Measures identified in the HRA shall be included in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Town of Colma Planning Division and/or Building Division clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures.

Implementation:

Town of Colma
Building
Department or
Planning
Department

Timing: Prior to
issuance of any
construction permit
Confirm that all
construction
plans submitted
incorporate all
applicable
mitigation
measures.

Initials: ________

Date: __________
Impact 4.2.3: The project could
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations
Mitigation Measure AQ-4:

Prior to discretionary project approval, applicants for industrial or warehousing land uses in addition to commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel—i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day based on the CARB recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses—shall contact the BAAQMD or the town of Colma in conjunction with the BAAQMD to determine the appropriate level of HRA (See next page.)

(See next page.)

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-4 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsibility
And Timing
Implementation
Monitoring
required. If preparation of an HRA is required, all HRAs shall be submitted to the town and the BAAQMD for evaluation.

The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the OEHHA and the BAAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E 06) or the risk thresholds in effect at the time a project is considered, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, or 0.3 µ/m3 of PM2.5 or the thresholds as determined by the BAAQMD at the time a project is considered, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

Measures to reduce risk impacts may include but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. • Electrifying warehousing docks.
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
• Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

Measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed General Plan.

Implementation:

Town of Colma
Planning
Department

Timing: During
discretionary
permit review
Confirm that
discretionary
projects meet
BAAQMD
requirements.

Initials: ________

Date: __________

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4.1: Future
development to implement the
proposed project could
potentially cause a direct
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical
resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section §15064.5
Mitigation Measures: CUL-1

1. For any project with potential to impact historical resources, a historical resource inventory of the project footprint shall be required to identify any historical resources. Before actual field reconnaissance occurs, background research shall include a record search at the NWIC, as well as a review of the SLF maintained by the NAHC. The project archaeologist shall determine the likelihood for the project site to contain archaeological resources by reviewing site photographs and existing historic information and conducting a site visit (for projects with exposed ground).

2. If archaeological resources cannot be avoided, significance evaluations shall be required when a survey identifies new resources, when a survey re-locates previously recorded resources that have not been previously evaluated, and when the survey does not re-locate previously recorded sites if there is a likelihood that the resources still exist.

3. Significance evaluations shall not be required if the historical resource has been evaluated for CEQA significance or f or NRHP eligibility within the last five years, and if there has been no change in the conditions that contributed to the determination of significance or eligibility. A historical resource shall be reevaluated if its condition or setting has either improv ed or deteriorated, if new information is available, or if the resource is becoming increasingly rare due to the loss of other similar resources.

Implementation:

The Town of
Colma Planning
Department or
Building
Department

Timing: During
construction
activities

Confirm that
procedures have
been followed
before and
during
construction as
applicable.

Initials: ________

Date: __________

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-5 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsibility
And Timing
Implementation
Monitoring

4. An archaeological testing program shall be required for archaeological sites in need of historical resource si gnificance evaluation. Archaeological testing programs include evaluating the horizontal and vertical dimensions of a site, the chronological placement, site function, artifact/ecofact density and variability, presence/absence of subsurface features, and r esearch potential. Tribal representatives and/or Native American monitors shall be involved in making recommendations regarding the significance of prehistoric archaeological sites during this phase of the process. The testing program may require reevaluation of the proposed project, which could result in a combination of project redesign to preserve significant resources as well as mitigation in the form of data recovery and monitoring (as recommended by the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative).

5. If significant historical resources are identified within the project footprint, the site may be eligible for designation in one or more registers. If no significant resources are identified, and site conditions are such that there is no poten tial for further discoveries, then no further action shall be required. If a survey and/or assessment finds nonsignificant resources, no further work shall be required beyond documentation of the resources on the appropriate California Department of Parks
and Recreation site forms and inclusion of results in the survey and/or assessment report.

If the survey finds no significant resources but results of the initial evaluation and testing phase indicate there is still a potential for resources to be present in portions of the property that could not be tested, then mitigation monitoring shall be required.

6. Preferred mitigation for historical resources shall be to avoid and preserve the resource through project redesign. If the resource cannot be entirely avoided, an archaeologist who meets the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (SOIPQS) for Archaeology shall take all prudent and feasible measures to minimize harm. For archaeological resources for which preservation is not an option, an archaeologist who meets the SOIPQS for Archaeology shall prepare a research design for a data recovery program. The data recovery program shall be based on a written research design and is subject to the provisions as outlined in CEQA, Section 21083.2.

Archaeological monitoring may be required during building demolition and/or construction grading when significant resources are known or suspected to be present on a site but cannot be recovered prior to grading due to obstructions such as existing development or dense vegetation.

7. When subsurface investigations, including geotechnical testing and other ground -disturbing activities, impact an archaeological site or a Native American Traditional Cultural Property within the project footprint, a Nativ e American monitor shall be retained. In the event that the data recovery and/or monitoring program reveals human remains, the provisions of PRC Section 5097 shall be applied. An archaeologist who meets the SOIPQS for Archaeology shall consult the Native American monitor during the preparation of the written report, at which time the monitor may express concerns about the treatment of sensitive resources.

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-6 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsibility
And Timing
Implementation
Monitoring
Impact 4.4.2: Future
development to implement the
proposed General Plan Update
could result in the potential
disturbance of cultural resources
(i.e., prehistoric archaeological
sites, historical archaeological
sites, and isolated artifacts and
features) within the Planning
Area
Mitigation Measures: CUL-2

1. If an archaeological resource is identified during future development or operations, all activity within 100 feet of the archaeological resource shall cease and be flagged for avoidance. An archaeologist who meets the S OIPQS for Archaeology shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The archaeologist shall inspect the find and notify the Town of their assessment.

2. If the assessment concludes that the discovery constitutes a significant or unique archaeological resource, or TCR, the resource shall be avoided if possible. If avoidance is not possible, the Town shall consult with all applicable parties, including Native American tribes if prehistoric, in an effort to determine measures to mitigate any potential impacts to the resource in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. An archaeologist who meets the SOIPQS for Archaeology shall employ measures that include documentation of the resource.

3. If an archaeological site does not meet the c riteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PR C Section 21083.2 (c -f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources.

4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment.

These procedures shall be included as Condition of Approval for all projects. Where appropriate, preconstruction measures will follow the guidelines as stated in CUL-1 (See next page)

Implementation:

The Town of
Colma Planning
Department or
Building
Department

Timing: During
construction
activities

(See next page)

Confirm that
procedures have
been followed
before and
during
construction as
applicable.

Initials: ________

Date: __________
Impact 4.4.3: The proposed
project would cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a TCR as defined
in Public Resources Code Section
§21074 or §5020.1(k)
Mitigation Measures: CUL-3

1. For any project with potential to result in adverse impacts to TCRs, the Town shall avoid and/or minimize impacts by facilitating the identification of tribal cultural resources through field studies. Coordination and collaboration regarding the resource shall be completed with agencies, tribes, and institutions, such as the Northwest Information Center, the Native American Heritage Commission, and local tribal governments, including consultation as outlined in Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52. The resource shall be treated with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; (B) Protecting the traditional use of the resource; and (C) Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

2. If possible, the Town shall avoid and preserve the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.

3. Greenspace, parks, or other open space shall use appropriate planning to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property shall be created with cu lturally Implementation:

The Town of
Colma Planning
Department or
Building
Department

Timing: During
construction
activities

Confirm that
procedures have
been followed
before and
during
construction as
applicable.

Initials: ________

Date: __________

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-7 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsibility
And Timing
Implementation
Monitoring
appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.

Impact 4.4.4: Adoption of the
proposed General Plan Update
could result in the potential
disturbance of human remains,
including those interred outside
of cemeteries within the
Planning Area
Mitigation Measures: CUL-4

1. If Native American human remains are discovered within a project footprint, the Town shall work with the most likely descendants identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC Section 5097.98.

The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items of cultural patrimony associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from the general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).

2. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
a. All construction activity shall cease within 100 feet of the discovery until the San Mateo County Medical Examiner is contacted and has completed their study. b. The San Mateo County Medical Examine r shall be contacted to determine whether an investigation of the cause of death is required.
c. If the medical examiner determines that the remains are Native American, the medical examiner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours.
d. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased Native American.
e. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the Most Likely Descendant regarding all reasonable options for treatment of human remains and any associated gra ve goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98.

3. As part of the objectives, criteria, and procedures required by PRC Section 21082, a lead agency shall make provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during constructio n. These provisions shall include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the archaeologist determines the find to be a significant historical or archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to a llow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be necessary. Work may continue on other parts of the project site while resource mitigation takes place. (See next page)

Implementation:

The Town of
Colma Planning
Department or
Building
Department

Timing: During
construction
activities

(See next page)

Confirm that
procedures have
been followed
before and
during
construction as
applicable.

Initials: ________

Date: __________

4.7 Greenhouse Gas
Impact 4.7.1: Implementation of
the proposed project would
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: (See next page)

(See next page)

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CSG Consultants, Inc 4.0-8 Town of Colma General Plan Update February 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsibility
And Timing
Implementation
Monitoring
generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment
The town of Colma shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure the town is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the town’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving a specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following:
• GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long -term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
• Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP:
• Administration and staffing
• Finance and budgeting
• Timelines for measure implementation
• Community outreach and education
• Monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management
• Tracking tools

Implementation:

Town of Colma
Planning
Department

Timing: Ongoing,
every five years

Complete CAP
update every five
years to monitor
progress toward
GHG reduction
goals.

Initials: ________

Date: __________

25977.00100\34919722.1
Staff Report – SB 234 Family Day Care Home Ordinance Page 1 of 2

STAFF REPORT
T
O: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
Anne Branham, Deputy City Attorney
VIA: Brian Dossey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2022
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Colma Municipal Code with Respect to Family Day Care Homes

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the following:

ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, AND CHAPTER 5,

PLANNING, ZONING, USE & DEVELOPMENT OF LAND & IMPROVEMENTS OF THE

COLMA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES , AND WAIVE

Colma City CouncilMarch 23, 2022

Colma City Council
March 23, 2022