South San Francisco City Council
July 27, 2022

May 2022
appliances or equipment. Pursuant to Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2, the use of portable diesel generators would be prohibited during construction.

The existing on-site warehouse currently consumes energy during normal operations.

Demolition of the existing building would remove the energy demand associated with operation of such. Therefore, energy demand during construction would be somewhat offset through reductions in energy demand due to the demolition of existing structure.

Even during the most intense period of construction, due to the different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, building construction), only portions of the site would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction equipment occurring at different locations on the project site, rather than a single location. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would subsequently help to improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. In addition, compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2- 2, which limits idling time to two minutes, would further reduce energy consumption during construction. Finally, technological innovations and more stringent standards are constantly being researched at the global level, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes; incorporation of such technologies could help to reduce demand on oil and emissions associated with construction.

The CARB prepared the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan),43 which builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan includes examples of local actions (municipal code changes, zoning changes, policy directions, and mitigation measures) that would support the State’s climate goals. The examples provided include, but are not limited to, enforcing idling time restrictions for construction vehicles, utilizing existing grid power for electric energy rather than operating temporary gasoline/diesel-powered generators, and increasing use of electric and renewable fuel-powered construction equipment. The In-Use Off Road regulation described in the Air Quality section of this SCEA IS, with which the proposed project must comply, would be consistent with the intention of the 2017 Scoping Plan and the recommended actions included in Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan.

Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand.

Following implementation of the proposed project, PG&E would provide electricity to the project site. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of residential uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, operation of stoves, kitchen and cleaning appliances, security systems, and more. Maintenance 43 California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents.

During operations, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Energy Reach Codes, which were adopted through Ordinance 1623-2021 on June 9, 2021, and are defined in Sections 15.26.020 and 15.22.020 of the City’s Municipal Code. The City’s Energy Reach Codes require all newly constructed residential buildings to be “All-Electric Buildings,” defined as buildings that do not have natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building property lines, and instead use only electricity as the source of energy for space heating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. In addition, new construction within the City is required to facilitate future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers. Specific requirements for multi-family developments with more than 20 dwelling units include the installation of one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space in the first 20 dwelling units with parking spaces.

For each additional dwelling unit, 25 percent of the dwelling units with parking space(s) are required to have at least one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space. Each remaining dwelling unit with parking space(s) shall be provided with at least one Level 1 Electric Vehicle Ready Space. Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the City’s Energy Reach Code and the most recent CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structure would consume energy efficiently.

Future residents would have access to electricity generated from renewable sources through PCE. Even if customers choose to opt out of PCE, the electricity supplied by PG&E would comply with the State’s RPS. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources. Furthermore, the project applicant has indicated that the project would incorporate design features such as energy efficient light fixtures and Energy-Star rated appliances. The rooftop would include the infrastructure necessary to facilitate future solar panel installation.

As noted above, the existing on-site building consumes energy. The proposed project would be built under more stringent efficiency standards compared to the standards in place at the time of construction of the existing building. Therefore, while the project may result in a net increase in energy demand, energy would be consumed more efficiently due to modern regulations.

As a qualifying Transit Priority Project, the project site is located within close proximity to existing public transit infrastructure, and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations would be included in the project to meet Code requirements. Short-term and long-term bicycle parking would be included on-site, which would encourage patrons to use alternative transportation. Through project consistency with the Plan Bay Area the project would reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and thereby reduce energy demand associated with transportation.

Based on the above, compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code, which requires buildings to be all electric, and the State’s latest Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed project would implement all necessary energy efficiency regulations.

Additionally, the inclusion of infrastructure for future installation of solar panels and other 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
sustainable features by the proposed project would further reduce any impacts associated with energy consumption.

Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
Construction and operation of the proposed project would increase energy demand at the project site. However, construction would take place over a limited, finite amount of time, and fuel efficiency of construction equipment would be regulated through State requirements. Operation of the project would not consume excessive energy as energy efficiency fixtures would be implemented to the maximum extent feasible, and transportation energy demand from future residents would be significantly reduced due to the close proximity of the site to the Caltrain Station. In addition, the project would include EV charging stations and infrastructure to allow for subsequent installation of solar panels, in compliance with local renewable energy plans. As such, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental impacts related to Energy. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
   
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?    
iv. Landslides?    
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
   
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
   
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
   
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?    
Environmental Setting
The following background setting information focuses on the existing topography of the region and project site, the underlying bedrock, and site seismicity, as well as the general conditions and expansiveness of the on-site soils.

While most of South San Francisco is comprised of flat or gently sloping areas, steep hillsides surround the northern and western portions of the City. Seismic and other structural hazards are related to two geologic conditions found in South San Francisco:
• Soils in the flat lowland areas, comprised largely of Bay Mud overlain with fill in the eastern portions of the City, have high shrink-swell potential, high water table, and low strength.

These soil conditions amplify earthquake waves and ground shaking, and are subject to liquefaction.
• Steeply-sloping hillside areas have soils with shrink-swell hazards, high erosion hazard, and low strength. Some of these soils have severe limitations for bearing dwellings without basements and for local roads. In addition, substantial portions of the south flank of San Bruno Mountain are classified as a high landslide risk area.

The San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire City, creating potential for ground rupture and high levels of ground shaking. Areas subject to extremely high or very high levels of wave amplification include the hills west of Callan Boulevard, adjacent to the San Andreas Fault zone, and the alluvial lowlands surrounding Colma Creek, between 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Orange and Linden Avenues. Most of the City would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude.44 The project site is situated in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges have experienced a complex geological history characterized by Late Tertiary folding and faulting that has resulted in a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys.

The following information was procured primarily from the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GEOCON (see Appendix D).45
The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, as designated pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and known faults do not cross the site. The nearest known active fault surface trace is the San Andreas Fault, which is mapped approximately

2.75 miles from the site. The inland valleys, as well as the structural depression within which San Francisco Bay is located, are filled with unconsolidated to semi-consolidated deposits of Quaternary age (about the last 1.6 million years). Continental deposits (alluvium) consist of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sand, silt, clay and gravel, while the bay deposits typically consist of soft organic-rich silt and clay (bay mud) or sand. Background geologic mapping by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the majority of the site is underlain by sandstone and shale of the Cretaceous- and Jurassic-age Franciscan Complex with artificial fills at the southern margin of the site. The artificial fills area likely associated with the in-fill of former natural stream channels during original site development.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.11 of the General Plan EIR evaluated the potential effects related to geology, soils, and seismicity within the City.
a.i-a.iv.Impacts related to seismic groundshaking, seismic-related hazards, liquefaction, and ground failure are discussed under General Plan EIR Impact 4.11-a. Surface rupture of an Alquist-Priolo Fault is discussed in Impact 4.11-b. If an earthquake occurs in the region, certain susceptible areas of South San Francisco could experience structural damage.

However, the following General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to a lessthan-significant level. • 8.1-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco.
• 8.1-I-1 Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2.
• 8.1-I-2 Require geotechnical and engineering geology reports as part of the development review process prior to approval of any development on sites within seismically sensitive lands, as indicated in Figure 8-5. (Figure 4.11-6 of the [General Plan] DEIR)
• 8.1-I-3 Explore programs that would build incentives to retrofit unreinforced masonry buildings.
44 South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999. 45 GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
c. General Plan EIR Impact 4.11-c discusses impacts related to expansive soils and settlement. Expansive soils can be found in several hillside locations throughout the City.

However, implementation of all applicable General Plan policies, as listed above, would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. b,d,e,f. Other impacts related to geological and soil resources were not discussed in the General Plan EIR.

Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Impacts related to geology and soils are discussed in Chapter 2.7 of the Plan Bay Area EIR.

Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. a.i. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to fault rupture under Impact

2.7-1. The Alquist-Priolo Act regulates where development and road projects can occur in relation to faults by requiring detailed fault identification studies and requiring minimum setback requirements. Local agencies and Caltrans also have requirements to address impacts related to fault rupture. Therefore, existing federal, state, and local regulations and oversight are in place that would effectively reduce the inherent hazard associated with fault rupture, and the impact would be less than significant. a.ii. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to ground shaking under Impact 2.7-2. While the Plan would result in increased population in a seismically active area, regulatory requirements already exist that establish specific development standards in such areas, and the impact would be less than significant. a.iii. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact regarding seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction under Impact 2.7-3. The impacts of ground failure, including liquefaction, on development of the land uses or transportation projects under the Plan Bay Area would be addressed through site-specific geotechnical studies required by local jurisdictions in accordance with standard industry practices and State-provided guidance.

In addition, development would conform to the current seismic design provisions of the International Building Code and CBSC in order to reduce potential losses from ground failure as a result of an earthquake. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a.iv. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to landslides under Impact

2.7-4. Landslide hazards are dependent on site-specific conditions, including the steepness of slopes, and other conditions such as, in the case of seismically-induced landslides, the distance and magnitude of the seismic event. State and local standards have been developed to address this condition and, therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil under Impact 2.7-5. Construction associated with land use and transportation projects would include ground disturbances that could expose underlying soils to the effects of erosion. However, existing regulatory requirements specify 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
mandatory actions that must occur during project development that would address this potential impact and, therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c,d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to locating future projects on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable, or contains expansive properties under Impact 2.7-6. Hazards associated with unstable soils or geologic units are dependent on site- specific conditions, as well as the specific nature of the individual project proposed. With adherence to grading permit and building code requirements, including seismic design criteria as required by the CBSC, Caltrans, Special Publication 117A, and local building code requirements, all improvements and development associated with both the land use development and transportation projects would be designed to minimize potential risks related to unstable soils and geologic units.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e. Impacts related to the suitability of soils to support septic systems is not included in the Plan Bay Area EIR.
f. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to destruction of unique paleontological or geologic features under Impact 2.11-3, and determined that individual development projects have the potential to adversely affect such resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.11-3, reproduced below, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-3 would apply to the proposed project, and has already been implemented:

2.11-3 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• Before construction activities, project sponsors shall conduct a record search using an appropriate database, such as the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed and whether resources were identified.
• If record searches indicate that the project is located in an area likely to contain important paleontological, and/or geological resources, such as sedimentary rocks which have yielded significant terrestrial and other fossils, project sponsors shall retain a qualified paleontologist to train all construction personnel involved with earthmoving activities about the possibility of encountering fossils. The appearance and types of fossils likely to be seen during construction will be described. Construction personnel will be trained about the proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered.
• If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew will be directed to immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the implementing agencies and/or project sponsors. The project sponsor will retain a qualified paleontologist for identification and salvage of fossils so that construction delays can be 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
minimized. The paleontologist will be responsible for implementing a recovery plan which could include the following:
o in the event of discovery, salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster-jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits; o recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil-bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting;
o laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains to a point of curation, generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens; o cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database;
o transferal, for storage, of cataloged fossil remains to an appropriate repository, with consent of property owner;
o preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the significance of the curated collection; and o project sponsors shall comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect paleontological or geologic resources.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a.i-ii. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone, as designated pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and known fault lines do not cross the project site. The nearest known active fault to the project site is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 2.75 miles from the site. Therefore, fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site.46 The project site is located within a seismically sensitive area, as designated in Figure 4.11- 6 of the General Plan EIR. As required by General Plan Policy 8.1-I-2, development on lands within seismically sensitive areas require geotechnical and engineering geology reports as part of the development review process. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project partially complies with this policy.

Preparation of a site-specific design-level geotechnical exploration, as required by projectspecific Mitigation Measure V-1, would ensure that the project fully complies with General Plan Policy 8.1-I-2.

Based on the proximity of the project site to local and regional faulting, as well as historical seismic activity, the project site is considered subject to relatively high ground shaking risk and related effects. However, the CBSC provides minimum standards to ensure that the 46 GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
proposed structures would be designed using sound engineering practices and appropriate engineering standards for the seismic area in which the project site is located.

Projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural, damage. Although conformance with the CBSC does not guarantee that substantial structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, conformance with the CBSC can reasonably be assumed to ensure that the proposed structures would be survivable, allowing occupants to safely evacuate in the event of a major earthquake.

Compliance with the CBSC would ensure that seismic-related effects would not cause adverse impacts. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to seismic rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. a.iii. Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, especially as a result of cyclic loadings induced by earthquakes or ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded fine sands. The liquefaction analysis prepared as part of the Geotechnical Investigation identified a portion of the alluvium below groundwater as potentially liquefiable. However, according to GEOCON, due to the depth to the liquefiable layer, the potential for ground loss due to sand boils or fissures in a seismic event is considered low. The likely consequence of potential liquefaction at the site is ground surface settlement. The GEOCON analysis concluded that, if liquefaction were to occur, settlements on the order of two inches may result at the southern margin of the site. Corresponding differential settlements may occur over a short horizontal distance due to the abrupt transition to formational materials across the site. Nonetheless, further evaluation is required through soil borings and laboratory testing to determine the liquefaction potential, and design accordingly. Without further evaluation of the on-site liquefaction potential, the proposed project could directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and a potentially significant impact could occur. However, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure V-1, which would be required by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. a.iv. Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. The project site does not contain, and is not located adjacent to, any such slopes. Thus, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Issues related to erosion are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this SCEA IS. As noted therein, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. As noted above, the project site is relatively level and is not located on or near any slopes.

Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to risk from landslide. Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Given that the project site does not contain any free faces, the potential for lateral spreading to pose a risk to the proposed development is negligible. However, as discussed under question “a.iii”, a portion of the site includes soils that are potentially liquefiable, and settlement could occur if the building is not appropriately designed.

Based on the above, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. However, implementation of projectspecific Mitigation Measure V-1, which would be required by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project, would reduce the potential impact to a less-thansignificant level. d. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content.

Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted.

Expansive soils can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundation. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by a variety of solutions.

If structures are underlain by expansive soils, foundation systems must be capable of tolerating or resisting any potentially damaging soil movements, and building foundation areas must be properly drained. Exposed soils must be kept moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction.

The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project did not identify expansive soils on-site. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to proposed structures being located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code, thereby creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
e. The proposed project would connect to the existing City sewer system. Thus, the construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems is not included as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soils to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f. Known unique geologic or paleontological resources have not been identified on-site. In addition, the project site has already been developed and, therefore, has been subject to substantial ground disturbance. Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure

2.11-3, this analysis relies on a records search request for a separate development project located on a neighboring lot that was submitted to the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) on January 22, 2021. The neighboring lot, hereafter referred to as the study lot, is located approximately 30 meters west of the project site. As noted in the records search request results, all latitude and longitudes for paleontological resources should be assumed to have several hundred meters of error. Due to the substantial margin of error and the close proximity to the project site, the results of the records search can reasonably be applied to the project site.

The records search identified the following three Pleistocene deposits to the west of the study lot: UCMP localities 164A, 164B, and V6319. In addition, several invertebrate localities that produced mollusks and echinoids from the Pliocene to Pleistocene Merced 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Formation exist in former creek beds near V6319. However, the aforementioned sites were all collected when the general area was less developed. The project area has since been built up, developed, and covered in fill. Because fossils were not identified in the immediate project area, and the surrounding area has been previously developed, the UCMP staff determined that previously reported fossils do not exist on or near the study lot.
47 Because the study lot is located immediately west of the project site, and the nearest paleontological resources to the study lot are located west of the study lot, the same conclusion reasonably applies to the project site.

Based on the records search, it is reasonably anticipated that ground-disturbing activity, such as grading, trenching, or excavating associated with implementation of the proposed project, would not have the potential to disturb or destroy any paleontological resources; thus, resulting in a less-than-significant impact regarding the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-thansignificant level.

V-1 Prior to approval of construction permits, the applicant shall retain a qualified geologist to prepare a site-specific design-level geotechnical exploration as part of the design process. The exploration shall include laboratory soil testing to provide additional data for preparation of specific recommendations regarding the following items:
• Grading, existing fill removal, and fill compaction;
• Consolidation settlement;
• Liquefaction settlement;
• Ground lurching;
• Lateral spreading;
• Site Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis (if required);
• Foundation design;
• Retaining walls;
• Site drainage and landscaping irrigation; and
• Pavement recommendations.

The project applicant shall submit results of the design-level geotechnical exploration to the City’s Planning Division and/or City Engineer for review and approval.

Findings
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and the proposed structures would be designed to withstand seismic ground shaking via compliance with the 2019 CBSC. The on-site soils are not identified to be expansive, but may be liquefiable and subject to settlement. Project-specific Mitigation Measure V-1 requires further evaluation of the site by preparation of a design-level geotechnical exploration, and implementation of all 47 Patricia Holroyd, Ph.D., Senior Museum Scientist at UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. Personal Communication [email] with Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician at Raney Planning & Management, Inc. March 18, 2021.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
recommendations therein. In addition, previously unknown unique paleontological resources are unlikely to be discovered during ground disturbing activities, based upon the records of the UCMP.

With implementation of the aforementioned project-specific Mitigation Measure, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects to Geology and Soils. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
   
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
   
Environmental Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are components of Earth’s atmosphere which affect the global climate by trapping and releasing thermal energy. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact.

Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities, water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).

The BAAQMD developed a threshold of significance for project-level GHG emissions in 2009.

The BAAQMD’s approach to developing the threshold was to identify a threshold level of GHG emissions for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation. At the time that the thresholds were developed, the foremost legislation regarding GHG emissions was Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which established an emissions reduction goal of reducing statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.48 The GHG emissions threshold of significance recommended by BAAQMD to determine compliance with AB 32 is 1,100 MTCO2e/yr.

If a project generates GHG emissions above the BAAQMD’s adopted threshold level, the project is considered to generate significant GHG emissions and conflict with AB 32.

The foregoing threshold is intended for use in assessing operational GHG emissions only.

Construction of a proposed project would result in GHG emissions over a short-period of time in comparison to the operational lifetime of the project. To capture the construction-related GHG emissions due to buildout of the proposed project, such emissions are amortized over the duration of the construction period and added to the operational GHG emissions. Given that constructionrelated GHG emissions would not occur concurrently with operational emissions and would cease upon completion of construction activities, and that BAAQMD thresholds are based on annual emissions (i.e., emissions from a single year, rather than combined emissions from multiple 48 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update: Proposed Thresholds of Significance. December 7, 2009.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
years), combining the two emissions sources represents a conservative estimate of annual project GHG emissions.

Since the adoption of BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance, the State legislature has passed SB 32, which builds upon AB 32 and establishes a statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Considering the legislative progress that has occurred regarding statewide reduction goals since the adoption of BAAQMD’s standards, the emissions thresholds presented above would determine whether a proposed project would be in compliance with the 2020 emissions reductions goals of AB 32, but would not necessarily demonstrate whether a project would be in compliance with SB 32. In accordance with the changing legislative environment, BAAQMD has begun the process of updating its CEQA Guidelines. While updated CEQA Guidelines have not yet been released, on April 20, 2022, the Air District Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans.49 Key motivations of this effort include the need to update the recommended thresholds to align with the latest State GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2045, and to support local planning efforts.

The MTC focuses on achieving GHG emissions reductions by encouraging a region wide transportation strategy, which would allow for a reduction of dependence on single passenger vehicles and an increase in alternative transit options. To accomplish the aforementioned transportation improvements, the MTC identified areas of the region where alternative transit options currently exist, and areas needing improvement. Areas with frequently recurring transit service and multiple alternative transportation options were identified in the MTC as being TPAs.

The MTC concluded that further densification and growth in TPAs would lead to a greater proportion of the regional population living and working in areas that would provide easy access to alternative means of transportation, which would lead to a greater use of alternative means of transportation and a reduction in passenger vehicle dependence. The project site has been identified as being in a TPA and, thus, compact and mixed-use development of the site is generally encouraged by the MTC as a means to achieve regional GHG emissions reductions.

The project qualifies as a Transit Priority Project and, thus, pursuant to PRC 21159.28, this environmental document is not required to reference, describe or discuss impacts from car and light duty truck trips on climate change or the regional transportation network. Discussions of impacts from car and light duty truck trips on climate change is not required of Transit Priority Projects because such projects are consistent with regional transportation plans, the implementation of which would contribute to regional reductions in GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis of project effects on GHG emissions does not include a discussion of the project’s GHG emissions from mobile sources; however, the discussion will analyze the project’s GHG emissions resulting from construction and other operational activities.

South San Francisco CAP
As a means of achieving the statewide GHG emissions reduction goals, the City of South San Francisco has prepared a CAP, which was adopted on February 13, 2014. Consistent with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the CAP presents a target reduction of 15 percent below baseline 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2020. The targets are consistent with statewide goals. In addition, the CAP includes a number of reduction measures intended to be implemented by the City in order to accomplish the reduction goals, and quantifies emissions reductions from the identified 49 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Accessed April 25, 2022.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
reduction measures in the years 2020 and 2035. The emissions reduction strategies developed by the City follows the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by the BAAQMD. The information included in the CAP fulfills the requirements of Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, but has not been updated to address compliance with reduction targets after 2020. It should be noted that the project is evaluated qualitatively for compliance with the CAP, but a quantitative threshold for GHG emissions for individual development projects has not been established by the City or set forth in the CAP.

Current GHG Emissions from Existing Buildings
The existing on-site warehouse building generates GHG emissions during normal operations. The operational GHG emissions of the existing conditions have been modeled using CalEEMod, and the results are presented in Table 8 below.

Table 8
Existing On-Site Conditions - Operational GHG Emissions Source Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Area 0.01
Energy 85.99
Mobile 408.93
Solid Waste 22.58
Water 16.26
Total Operational Emissions 533.75
Source: CalEEMod, April 2021 (Appendix A).

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR does not include an analysis of impacts related to GHG emissions. However, the following policies, which relate to GHG emissions, are included in the City’s General Plan:
• 7.3-G-2 Mitigate the South San Francisco community’s impact on climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with state guidance. • 7.3-G-5 Promote clean and alternative fuel combustion in mobile equipment and vehicles. • 7.3-I-6 Periodically update the inventory of community-wide GHG emissions and evaluate appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets, consistent with current State objectives, statewide guidance, and regulations.
• 7.3-I-7 Adopt and implement the City of South San Francisco’s CAP, which will identify a GHG emissions reduction target and measures and actions to achieve the reduction target. • 7.3-I-8 Evaluate and regularly report to City Council, or its designee, on the implementation status of the CAP and update the CAP as necessary should the City find that adopted strategies are not achieving anticipated reductions, or to otherwise incorporate new opportunities.
• 7.3-I-9 Promote land uses that facilitate alternative transit use, including high-density housing, mixed uses, and affordable housing served by alternative transit infrastructure. • 7.3-I-12 Adopt guidelines, standards, and flexible regulations that promote on-site renewable energy systems while strengthening South San Francisco’s economic competitiveness.
• 7.3-I-13 Encourage efficient, clean energy and fuel use through collaborative programs, award programs, and incentives, while removing barriers to the expansion of alternative fuel facilities and infrastructure.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
• 7.3-I-14 Ensure that design guidelines and standards support operation of alternative fuel facilities, vehicles, and equipment.
• 7.3-I-15 Demonstrate effective operations in municipal facilities that reduce GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.5 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluates potential impacts to global climate change that may result from GHG emissions related to the implementation of the proposed Plan. a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the net increase in direct and indirect GHG emissions in 2040 when compared to existing conditions under Impact 2.5-2. Because implementation of the Plan Bay Area would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions in 2040 when compared to existing conditions, the impact would be less than significant. b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to conflicting with the goal of SB 32 under Impact 2.5-3. While the Plan Bay Area would support progress towards attaining the 2030 and 2050 targets, even more aggressive GHG reduction actions, such as local implementation of GHG reduction plans, would be needed to conform to such long-term targets. Therefore, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the Plan may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce emissions of GHGs.

Implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3, requires measures consistent with the State 2017 Scoping Plan, including directing counties and cities to adopt qualified GHG reduction plans (e.g., CAPs). Mitigation, via CAPs for individual jurisdictions, or other programs, including retrofitting existing buildings, installing renewable energy facilities that replace reliance on fossil-fuel power in the region, alterations in the vehicle fleet (toward more non-fossil fuel-powered vehicles) and other measures would be required to meet the goals needed to attain the State’s 2030 targets.

However, there is no assurance that this level of mitigation would be accomplished throughout the Bay Area. Moreover, MTC/ABAG cannot require local implementing agencies to adopt Mitigation Measure 2.5-3, and it is ultimately the responsibility of a lead agency to determine and adopt mitigation. According to the Plan Bay Area EIR, even with full implementation of the mitigation measure, forecasted emissions would not be reduced to target levels under SB 32. Thus, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

It should be noted that the significant and unavoidable determination above refers to buildout of the entire Plan Bay Area planning area. However, as discussed in further detail below, implementation of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions that are below the applicable thresholds of significance, and the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP and the 2017 Scoping Plan. As such, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the significant and unavoidable impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3, which requires adoption of a local CAP or other qualified GHG reduction plan, is focused on lead agency efforts, and would not apply to the proposed project.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a, b. Because the proposed project is a Transit Priority Project, a discussion of impacts from light vehicle traffic on global climate change is not required, pursuant to PRC Section 21159.28(a). However, the remaining sources of GHG emissions must still be addressed.

Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change. Neither the City nor BAAQMD has an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s construction GHG emissions, as well as operational emissions, have been estimated using CalEEMod, under the same assumptions discussed in Section I, Air Quality, of this SCEA IS (see Appendix A). PG&E’s compliance with the State’s RPS was assumed in the modeling. As noted in the previous section of this SCEA IS, customers would be able to purchase renewably-sourced electricity through PCE. However, because future residents have the option to opt out of PCE services, the modeling conservatively assumed that PG&E would be the electricity provider for the project. In reality, emissions from electricity are expected to be lower than the levels presented herein.

The emissions estimates prepared for the proposed project determined that unmitigated project construction would result in total GHG emissions of 1,609.81 MTCO2e over the course of 2.5 years. The most emissions-intensive year of construction is expected to occur in 2024, with construction resulting in 758.03 MTCO2e/yr. In order to provide a conservative estimate of emissions, the proposed project’s construction GHG emissions have been amortized over the anticipated construction period of the project. As shown in Table 9, total amortized unmitigated construction emissions would equate to 643.92 MTCO2e/yr over the assumed 2.5-year construction period of the project.

Table 9
Unmitigated Annual Project Construction GHG Emissions
Year Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
2023 329.91
2024 758.03
2025 521.87
Total Construction Emissions 1,609.81
Amortized Annual Construction Emissions 643.92
Source: CalEEMod, April 2022 (Appendix A, page 55).

According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in total annual GHG emissions as shown in Table 10, including the amortized construction emissions.

Additionally, the GHG emissions associated with the current operation of the existing commercial building are also presented in the table. In the absence of the proposed project, the emissions would continue unabated. Considering that existing GHG emissions resulting from the current operations at the project site would continue in the absence of the proposed project, the analysis of operational GHG emissions presented in this SCEA IS focuses on the net change in emissions.

Based on the total annual GHG emissions shown in the table, including amortized annual construction emissions, the proposed project would result in net new annual GHG emissions of 898.69 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
result in emissions below the BAAQMD’s former 1,100 MTCO2e/yr threshold of significance, and the proposed project would not conflict with AB 32.

Table 10
Unmitigated Annual Operational GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) Emission Source
Existing
Conditions
Proposed
Project
Net New Annual
GHG Emissions
Area 0.01 15.37 +15.36
Energy 85.99 269.391 +183.4
Solid Waste 22.58 67.55 +44.97
Water 16.26 33.16 +16.9
Amortized Construction
Emissions - 638.06 +638.06
Total Annual GHG
Emissions 124.82 1,023.53 898.69
BAAQMD Threshold - - 1,100.00
Exceeds Threshold? - - NO
Note: In compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed building would be all-electric, and would not include natural gas infrastucture. The prohibition of natural gas, and associated increase in electricity use, have been calculated off-model. Refer to Appendix A, page 173.

Source: CalEEMod, April 2021 and April 2022 (Appendix A, pages 5 and 58).

The updated GHG thresholds adopted by BAAQMD on April 20, 2022 to address more recent climate change legislation, including SB 32, provide thresholds related to Buildings and Transportation. The proposed project is not subject to the Transportation thresholds as it is considered a Transit Priority Project; pursuant to PRC 21159.28, this environmental document is not required to reference, describe or discuss impacts from car and light duty truck trips on climate change or the regional transportation network. Regarding BAAQMD’s new Buildings threshold, a project must be shown to meet the following minimum project design elements:50
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

As noted in the above table, in compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed building would be all-electric, and would not include natural gas infrastructure.

Thus, criterion ‘a’ would be met. As demonstrated in Section IV of this SCEA, the proposed project would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage. Thus, criterion ‘b’ would be met and it can be seen that the proposed project would not conflict with the State’s latest climate legislation, including SB 32.

Climate Action Plan
The City’s CAP is implemented at the project level through preparation of the Development Review Checklist. The Development Review Checklist for the proposed project is included 50 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans [pg. 2]. April 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
as Appendix E to this SCEA IS. As noted therein, the project would comply with the majority of measures included in the CAP, including, but not limited to, the incorporation of:
• Bicycle facilities;
• High-density housing;
• Payment of traffic impact fees; and
• EV charging spaces.

As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s CAP and, therefore, would not conflict with the applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. It should be noted that the CAP focuses on achieving the goals set forth by AB 32.

Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan
Prior to the recent adoption of GHG emissions thresholds to assess compliance with SB 32, the BAAQMD directed jurisdictions to qualitatively assess a project’s compliance with the recommended mitigation measures within the California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) as an alternative means of assessing a project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions.51
Appendix B to the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan provides examples of potentially feasible mitigation measures that could be considered to assess a project’s compliance with the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reductions goals. Thus, general compliance with the majority of the Local Actions within the 2017 Scoping Plan could be considered to demonstrate the project’s compliance with SB 32. Notwithstanding the BAAQMD’s recent adoption of GHG thresholds related to SB 32, this SCEA also discusses the project’s consistency with the applicable Local Actions within the 2017 Scoping Plan in Table 11 below.

Table 11
Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Construction
Enforce idling time restrictions for
construction vehicles.

Pursuant to the applicable Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2, the idling time for construction vehicles associated with the project shall be limited to no more than two minutes. Construction fleets and all equipment operated as part of on-site construction activities would be subject to such idling restrictions. As such, the
proposed project would be required to comply with this
measure.

Require construction vehicles to
operate with the highest tier engines
commercially available.

The project applicant has not committed to using
construction equipment that complies with the highest
tier engines commercially available. However, it should be noted that construction emissions would fall below
the BAAQMD’s thresholds. As a result, project
compliance with this measure is uncertain.

Divert and recycle construction and
demolition waste, and use locallyThe CALGreen Code requires the diversion of construction and demolition waste, and the proposed 51 Flores, Areana. Environmental Planner, Planning and Climate Protection. Personal communication [phone] with Jacob Byrne, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. September 17, 2019.
(Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 11
Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
sourced building materials with a high
recycled material content to the
greatest extent feasible.
project would be required to comply with the
requirements within the most up-to-date CALGreen
Code. Thus, the project would be considered to comply
with the suggested measure.

Minimize tree removal, and mitigate
indirect GHG emissions increases
that occur due to vegetation removal,
loss of sequestration, and soil
disturbance.

While the two on-site trees would be removed as part of the proposed project, the project would include planting several trees as part of the Landscaping Plan. As such, the loss of sequestration associated with the removal of two trees would be offset by planting several new trees.

Thus, the project would be considered to generally
comply with the suggested measure.

Utilize existing grid power for electric
energy rather than operating
temporary gasoline/diesel powered
generators.

Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure

2.2-2, the contractor would use existing grid electricity to the extent feasible. However, the possibility exists that temporary natural gas or propane generators will be
used for electricity in instances where grid electricity is not accessible. Overall, the project would be considered to generally comply with the suggested measure.

Increase use of electric and
renewable fuel powered construction
equipment and require renewable
diesel fuel where commercially
available.

The project applicant has not committed to the use of
alternatively fueled construction equipment.

Furthermore, the commercial availability of renewable
diesel in the project area is currently unknown.

Consequently, compliance with this suggested measure
is uncertain at this time.

Require diesel equipment fleets to be
lower emitting than any current
emission standard.

The project applicant has not committed to reducing
emissions from the construction fleet beyond any
current emissions standards. Consequently, compliance
with this suggested measure is uncertain at this time.

Operations
Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Comply with lead agency’s standards
for mitigating transportation impacts
under SB 743.

As noted in Section XIII, Transportation, of this SCEA
IS, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. As a residential development
within a TPA, a key objective of this project is to reduce VMT. Thus, the project would be considered to comply
with the suggested measure.

Require on-site EV charging
capabilities for parking spaces
serving the project to meet
jurisdiction-wide EV proliferation
goals.

New construction within the City is required to facilitate future installation and use of electric vehicle chargers.

Specific requirements for multi-family developments
with more than 20 dwelling units include the installation of one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space in the first 20 dwelling units with parking spaces. For each
additional dwelling unit, 25 percent of the dwelling units with parking space(s) are required to have at least one Level 2 Electric Vehicle Ready Space. Each remaining
dwelling unit with parking space(s) shall be provided
with at least one Level 1 Electric Vehicle Ready Space.

Compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code would
ensure that the proposed project provides sufficient EV charging infrastructure to comply with this suggested
measure.
(Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 11
Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Dedicate on-site parking for shared
vehicles.

The project applicant has not committed to providing
dedicated parking for shared vehicles. Therefore,
compliance with the suggested measure is uncertain at
this time. However, implementation of Transportation
Demand Program prepared for the proposed project
would otherwise incentivize carpool/vanpool programs
and provide access to shared vehicles. Thus, the
proposed project generally complies with the intent of
the suggested measure.

Provide adequate, safe, convenient,
and secure on-site bicycle parking
and storage in multi-family residential
projects and in non-residential
projects.

The proposed project would include 31 short-term and
104 long-term bicycle parking spaces in an enclosed
space for residents. Accordingly, the project would
comply with the suggested measure.

Provide on- and off-site safety
improvements for bike, pedestrian,
and transit connections, and/or
implement relevant improvements
identified in an applicable bicycle
and/or pedestrian master plan.

As part of the project, sidewalk improvements would be
implemented along the Airport Boulevard frontage. In
addition, the project would include both short- and longterm bicycle parking, bicycle and scooter share projects, a bicycle repair station, and other bike and pedestrian improvements. Consequently, the project would comply
with the suggested measure. Additional discussion of
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities is provided in Section XIII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS.

Require on-site renewable energy
generation.

Consistent with the 2019 CBSC requirements for
residential buildings over three stories, the rooftops of the proposed buildings would be designed to include
infrastructure for the future provision of solar panels.

Upon the incorporation of such solar panels, the project would comply with this suggested measure.

Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces in
new development, and require
replacement of wood-burning
fireplaces for renovations over a
certain size development.

The proposed project would not include wood-burning
fireplaces. Thus, the proposed project would comply
with the suggested measure.

Require cool roofs and “cool parking”
that promotes cool surface treatment
for new parking facilities as well as
existing surface lots undergoing
resurfacing.

The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards contain
requirements for the thermal emittance, three-year aged reflectance, and Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of
roofing materials used in new construction and reroofing projects. Such standards, with which the project would be required to comply, would help to reduce
heating and cooling costs associated with the proposed
project. In addition, all parking would be internal within the first two stories of the building and, therefore,
surface lot heat effects would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would generally comply with the
suggested measure.

Require solar-ready roofs. The rooftop of the proposed building would be designed to include infrastructure for the provision of solar panels.

Consequently, the project would comply with the
suggested measure.

Require organic collection in new
developments.

California state legislature AB 1826 requires commercial and multi-family customers to subscribe to organics
(Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 11
Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
recycling. Therefore, the proposed multi-family
residential building would be required to include organic collection, and organic composting is mandatory for all businesses and institutions with four or more cubic yards of garbage service. In addition, the City’s garbage
provider offers food scraps collection services for multifamily residential buildings. As such, future residents may have access to the organic collection service. Thus, the proposed project would include organic collection
and the project would comply with the suggested
measure.

Require low-water landscaping in
new developments (see CALGreen
Divisions 4.3 and 5.3 and the Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
[MWELO], which is referenced in
CALGreen). Require water efficient
landscape maintenance to conserve
water and reduce landscape waste.

Project landscaping has been designed to integrate low
and moderate water use plants to the maximum extent
feasible. Landscaping within the project site would be
required to comply with the CALGreen Code and all
water efficiency measures therein, including the
MWELO or any similar regulations adopted by the City
of South San Francisco. Accordingly, the proposed
project would comply with this measure.

Achieve Zero Net Energy
performance building standards prior
to dates required by the Energy
Code.

The project applicant has not committed to achieving
Zero Net Energy. Thus, compliance with the suggested
measure is uncertain at this time. It should be noted that the CBSC does not require new high-rise multi-family
residential developments to achieve Zero Net Energy at
this time. Nonetheless, consistent with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed building would be all-electric.

Based on such, and considering the State’s goal of
carbon neutrality by 2045, the proposed project would
likely achieve Zero Net Energy by 2045, as well.

Encourage new construction,
including municipal building
construction, to achieve third-party
green building certifications, such as
the GreenPoint Rated program,
LEED rating system, or Living
Building Challenge.

The project applicant has not committed to achieving
any third-party green building certifications.

Consequently, compliance with the suggested measure
is uncertain at this time.

Require the design of bike lanes to
connect to the regional bicycle
network.

The City is in the process of preparing an update to its Bicycle Master Plan. Active South City is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the City of South San
Francisco, currently in development and expected to be
completed in the early 2022. Potential bike lane
improvements in the immediate project vicinity are being evaluated comprehensively by the City through the
Active South City plan process. Additional discussion of existing and proposed bicycle facilities is provided in Section XIII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS.

Expand urban forestry and green
infrastructure in new land
development.

The project would include landscaping throughout the
site, which would result in an increase in the total
number of trees on-site, compared to the existing site
conditions. Therefore, the project would expand urban
forestry and comply with the suggested measure.
(Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 11
Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
Require preferential parking spaces
for park and ride to incentivize
carpooling, vanpooling, commuter
bus, electric vehicles, and rail service
use.

The proposed TDM includes measures that would
incentivize alternative travel and reduce VMT, including, but not limited to, the following: unbundled parking, bike repair stations, carpool and vanpool incentives, public bike and scooter share programs, rideshare matching
events, etc. In addition, consistent with the City’s Energy Reach Code, the proposed project would be required to
exceed the number of EV charging stations typically
required by the CALGreen Code. Thus, the project
would comply with the suggested measure.

Require the installation of energy
conserving appliances such as ondemand tank-less water heaters and whole-house fans.

The proposed project would be required to comply with
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which
includes standards related to installation of energyefficient appliances and building features such as water heaters and ventilation systems, as well as the City’s
Energy Reach Code. Thus, the project would generally
comply with the suggested measure.

Require each residential and
commercial building equip buildings
[sic] with energy efficient AC units
and heating systems with
programmable thermostats/timers.

The proposed project would be required to comply with
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which
includes standards related to energy-efficient heating
and cooling systems, as well as the City’s Energy Reach Code. Thus, the project would generally comply with the suggested measure.

Require large-scale residential
developments and commercial
buildings to report energy use, and
set specific targets for per-capita
energy use.

The project applicant has not committed to reporting
energy use or setting specific energy use targets.

Accordingly, compliance with the suggested measure is
uncertain at this time.

Require each residential and
commercial building to utilize low flow
water fixtures such as low flow toilets
and faucets (see CALGreen Divisions

4.3 and 5.3 as well as Appendices
A4.3 and A5.3).

The proposed project would be required to comply with
all applicable provisions of the residential water
efficiency regulations within the CALGreen Code. Thus,
the proposed project would comply with the suggested
measure.

Require the use of energy-efficient
lighting for all street, parking, and
area lighting.

All proposed exterior lighting would be LED type,
consistent with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. Thus, the proposed project would comply
with the suggested measure.

Require the landscaping design for
parking lots to utilize tree cover and
compost/mulch.

Parking spaces are provided on the first two stories of the proposed building, and therefore would already be
shaded. Nonetheless, the proposed landscaping plans
include tree planting throughout the project area. Thus, the proposed project would generally comply with the
suggested measure.

Incorporate water retention in the
design of parking lots and
landscaping, including using
compost/mulch.

The proposed project would include installation of
pervious surfaces, landscaped areas, and bio-retention
areas. As such, the proposed project would be
consistent with the general intent of this suggested
measure.

Require the development project to
propose an off-site mitigation project
which should generate carbon credits
The suggested mitigation measures included in the
2017 Scoping Plan are not considered to be
requirements for local projects under CEQA, but instead (Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 11
Analysis of Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Suggested Measure Consistency Discussion
equivalent to the anticipated GHG
emission reductions. This would be
implemented via an approved
protocol for carbon credits from
California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA), the
California Air Resources Board, or
other similar entities determined
acceptable by the local air district.

The project may alternatively
purchase carbon credits from the
CAPCOA GHG Reduction Exchange
Program, American Carbon Registry
(ACR), Climate Action Reserve
(CAR) or other similar carbon credit
registry determined to be acceptable
by the local air district.
represent options for projects to demonstrate
compliance with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The inclusion
of GHG off-set mitigation projects or the purchase of
carbon credits is typically dependent on a project’s
exceedance of the previously identified quantitative
GHG thresholds. However, neither BAAQMD nor the
City’s CAP have identified quantitative thresholds that could be used to determine that the project’s anticipated emissions would be such that an off-site mitigation
project or purchase of GHG reduction credits would be
required in order to comply with SB 32.

Considering that the project has been shown to be
generally consistent with the foregoing measures, is
consistent with the City’s CAP, and below BAAQMD’s
quantitative thresholds, the City, in its discretion as lead agency, has chosen not to require the project to
implement an off-site mitigation project or purchase
GHG reduction credits.

Source:California Air Resources Board. AB 32 Scoping Plan [Appendix B]. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. Accessed April 2021.

As demonstrated in the table above, the project complies with the majority of the Local Action items in the 2017 Scoping Plan. The Local Action items are examples of potentially feasible measures, and complete compliance with all of the measures is not necessary for a project to be considered to comply with SB 32.

The primary goal of the 2017 Scoping Plan is to reduce GHG emissions, and the primary contributor of operational GHG emissions from residential projects is from VMT. Through project consistency with the Plan Bay Area, the project would reduce VMT and mobilesourced emissions, and be consistent with the overall intent of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The proposed project is in a TPA, and would encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation by increasing the number of residents near existing and proposed means of public transit. Additionally, the project’s location in an urban employment area would allow employees that work in the surrounding areas to walk or bike to work, eliminating the need for single passenger vehicle commutes, and thus reducing mobile GHG emissions.

Additionally, because the project is a Transit Priority Project, the proposed project would also be consistent with ABAG’s GHG reductions mandated by SB 375. Considering that the project’s emissions would be consistent with BAAQMD’s thresholds and the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area, the City’s CAP, and the majority of applicable Local Actions of the 2017 Scoping Plan, the project would not interfere with or impede the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, and impacts would be considered less than significant.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Findings
The Plan Bay Area was designed to help achieve regional GHG emissions reductions through the careful planning of transportation and land use projects. Project consistency with the Plan Bay Area was demonstrated through addressing the criteria in PRC 21155(b), included in the Project Description of this SCEA IS. As such, implementation of the project would work towards the goal of reducing regional GHG emissions. In addition, project modeling indicates that construction and operations of the proposed project would fall below the applicable thresholds of significance. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3 is aimed at government entities, and does not apply to the proposed project. Because the project would not exceed any thresholds of significance, and would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area, the City’s CAP, and the 2017 Scoping Plan, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to GHG Emissions.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
   
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
   
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
   
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
   
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
   
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?     Environmental Setting
The project site currently consists of an approximately 35,000-sf commercial warehouse building, which was constructed circa 1950, and associated paved area. Existing development completely surrounds the site. The date of construction for the on-site structure predates the bans employed by the federal government regarding the use of lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. In 2002, the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (Title 17, Section 93105, of the California Code of Regulations) went into effect, which requires each air pollution control and air quality management district to implement and enforce the requirements of Section 93105 and propose their own asbestos ATCM as provided in Health and Safety Code section 39666(d).52 As a result, BAAQMD regulates construction activities that produce dust that could contain NOA.

Tenants on the subject property have included a steel machine shop (1950-1970), Tire Jobbers (1970), Bay Carbon Company (1977-1995), Ogden Allied Services Corp. (1987-1995), Sky Chefs (2000-2005), Quong Hop (2005), J.R. Produce (2005), Capital Sigma Investments (2010), and The Produce and United Property (2015-present).

The San Francisco International Airport, which is the nearest airport to the project site, is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. The nearest school relative to the project site is Spruce Elementary School, located approximately 0.65-mile northwest of the site. 52 California Air Resources Board. 2002-07-29 Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. June 3, 2015. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm. Accessed July 2020.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.7 of the General Plan EIR includes a discussion of hazards, hazardous materials, and emergency response.
a,b,d. Impact 4.7-b discusses impacts related to accidental exposure to hazardous materials during operations. Implementation of the following General Plan policies would ensure that impacts related to hazardous materials would remain less than significant. • 7.2-I-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's website, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use.
• 8.3-G-1 Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. • 8.3-G-2 Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (EPA), state (DTSC, RWQCB, Cal OSHA, Cal EPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations.
• 8.3-I-1 Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. • 8.3-I-2 Continue to comply with the Zoning Ordinance's hazardous waste regulations.
• 8.3-I-3 Prepare a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for the sites included in the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. • 8.3-I-4 Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials.
c,e. Impacts related to emitting hazardous emissions or hazardous materials within 0.25-mile from a school or related to safety hazards or exposure to excessive noise for people working or residing within two miles from an airport were not discussed within the General Plan EIR.
f. Impact 4.7-c analyzes how potential hazards could affect emergency responses or emergency evacuation routes. The General Plan EIR notes that development within the City could reduce the availability and effectiveness of evacuation routes and emergency vehicle access routes. However, with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, listed under item “a,b,d” above, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
g. Impacts associated with wildland fires are discussed under Impact 8.4-b of the General Plan EIR. Under General Plan Policy 8.4-I-1, the City shall institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards to the maximum extent feasible.

Therefore, with implementation of relevant policies set forth in the General Plan, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.

40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.13 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials under Impact 2.13-1. Because of the existing federal, state, and local regulations and oversight in place that would effectively reduce the inherent hazard associated with these activities, the impact would be less than significant.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment under Impact 2.13-2. Existing regulations effectively reduce the potential for individual projects to create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be less than significant.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to emissions or handling of hazardous materials within 0.25-mile of a school under Impact 2.13-3. All projects would be required to comply with federal and state regulations that are designed to reduce the potential for the release of large quantities of hazardous materials and wastes into the environment to an acceptable level, and in particular to protect schools. Existing federal, state, and local regulations and oversight would be sufficient to ensure that hazardous materials stored, used, transported, and disposed of under the proposed Plan would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or the environment, including children at schools, under normal conditions. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the proposed project being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 under Impact 2.13-4. The potential for encountering hazardous materials or wastes would be dependent on site-specific conditions. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.13-4 requires preparation of a Phase I ESA if a project site is located on or near a hazardous materials or hazardous waste site, and compliance with its recommendations. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures

2.13-4, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the abovereferenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the individual project’s impacts related to hazard materials or wastes would be less than significant.

In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact associated with such.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to the potential safety hazard for people residing or working within two miles of an airport under Impacts 2.13-5 and 2.13-6. Due to existing regulations, impacts were determined to be less than significant.
f. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to interfering with emergency response and evacuation plans under Impact 2.13-7. Emergency response and evacuation plans are periodically updated to accommodate growth and would continue to be updated for growth and changes in projected development associated with the Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. g. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impacts related to wildland fires under Impact 2.13-8. Compliance with existing state and local regulations would effectively reduce the inherent hazard associated with development of areas with a high wildfire hazard to an acceptable level. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.13-4 would apply to the proposed project, and has already been implemented.

2.13-4 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• If the project is located on or near a hazardous materials and/or waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, or has the potential for residual hazardous materials and/or waste as a result of location and/or prior uses, the project sponsor shall prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials’ E1527-05 standard.

For work requiring any demolition or renovation, the Phase I ESA shall make recommendations for any hazardous building materials survey work that shall be done. All recommendations included in a Phase I ESA prepared for a site shall be implemented. If a Phase I ESA indicates the presence or likely presence of contamination, the implementing agency shall require a Phase II ESA, and recommendations of the Phase II ESA shall be fully implemented.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. Residential land uses are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Maintenance and operation of the proposed project may use common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount anticipated to be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
b. The following discussion provides an analysis of potential hazards and hazardous materials associated with upset or accident conditions related to the proposed construction activities and existing on-site conditions.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction.

However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and any applicable local ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. As noted in Section I, Air Quality, of this SCEA IS, the project site may contain NOA and, therefore, ground disturbing activities could release asbestos-containing dust. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable regulations under the Asbestos ACTM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. In addition, project-specific Mitigation Measure I-2 requires implementation of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan during construction of the proposed project, and would reduce potential impacts related to exposure to NOAcontaining dust to a less-than-significant level.

Construction activities associated with upsizing the off-site sewer line would be required to comply with Element V, Design and Construction Standards, of the City of South San Francisco Sewer System Management Plan. Compliance with such standards would ensure that the accidental release of hazardous waste is unlikely to occur.

A Phase I ESA was prepared for the proposed project by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) for the purpose of identifying potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the project site (see Appendix F).53 The Phase I ESA included a reconnaissance of the project site and a review of local, State, and federal environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps and physical setting sources. Sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA indicate that the project site has been subject to prior development, and the existing warehouse structure is visible in aerial photographs by 1956.

The site reconnaissance of the project site was conducted on December 4, 2017. 54 The
project site was examined for debris, hazardous substances storage, aboveground and underground storage tanks, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), strong or noxious odors, pools of liquid, stressed vegetation, or any other conditions that may be indicative of potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination. Hazardous substances or petroleum products were not observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance. One 430-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) for chlorine and two 200-gallon ASTs for ‘sanitize solution’ were observed on the eastern side of the building.

The chlorine and sanitize solution are used to disinfect the produce processed at the existing facility. Three 55-gallon drums wrapped in plastic were observed in the cooling system enclosure located north of the building on the project site. According to the facility manager, the 55-gallon drums are currently empty, and were previously used to contain chlorine before the installation of the chlorine AST. Signs of spills or leakage from any of the tanks were not observed. One pad mounted electrical transformer, owned and 53 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017. 54 The current conditions of the project site are substantially similar to the on-site conditions that were present at the time that the site reconnaissance was conducted. Therefore, the conclusions of the Phase I ESA remain applicable. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
operated by PG&E, was observed southwest of the building in the subject property. Based on the type and condition of the generator, the generator was likely installed after 1977 and, therefore, is not anticipated to contain PCB. Other potential PCB-containing equipment (transformers, oil-filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, etc.) was not observed on the project site during the site reconnaissance. In addition, the Phase I ESA concluded that vapor migration is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern at this time. Overall, the Phase I ESA did not identify any existing RECs that could be exacerbated by development of the project.

Records obtained from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department indicate that the project site has been identified as a permit holder to store hazardous waste, including motor vehicle fuel and/or waste, since 2007, and as a hazardous waste generator since 2010. Violations, including administrative/paperwork and labeling issues, an open and unlabeled waste oil container with a drip pan, and oil or grease on concrete on an outside caged area located north of the building, were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on the minor nature of these violations and lack of a documented release, Partner concluded that such violations are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.

As noted in Section I, Air Quality, of this SCEA IS, structures built prior to 1978 and especially prior to the 1960s should be expected to contain LBP. In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1926.1101 states that all thermal system insulation (boiler insulation, pipe lagging, and related materials) and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos-containing material (ACMs)” unless proven otherwise. The existing warehouse building was constructed circa 1950. Based on the age of the building, the potential exists that LBP and ACM is present. Without a comprehensive ACM and lead survey, demolition of the existing warehouse could result in the exposure of construction workers to such hazardous materials.

Based on the above, operations of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, construction and demolition activities could result in the release of NOA, ACM, and/or LBP. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur. However, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure VII-1, which would be required by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
c. The nearest school relative to the project site is Spruce Elementary School, located approximately 0.65-mile northwest of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
d. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, the project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.55 55 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES.

Accessed April 2020.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no impact would occur.
e. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport, located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. According to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (Land Use Plan), the project site falls within the boundaries for Airport Influence Areas A and B.

Area B is a subset of, and thus within, Area A. For projects located within Area B, the Airport Land Use Commission must review and approve development proposals, and a real estate disclosure form must be prepared for future residents. However, the project site is located outside of the Outer Boundary of Safety Zones, and outside of the Outer Boundary of Terminal Instrument Procedure (TERPS) Approach and One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Departure Surfaces. As shown in Exhibit IV-6 of the Land Use Plan, the project site is located outside of the 65 dB contour.56 Because the project site is not located within a Safety Zone or a TERPS Approach and OEI Departure Surface, no impact would occur related to safety hazards. In addition, because the project site would be subject to less than 65 dB from airport operations the project would not subject future residents and employees to excessive noise. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
f. During operation, the proposed project would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. During construction of the proposed project, all construction equipment would be staged on-site so as to prevent obstruction of local and regional travel routes in the City that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. The project would not substantially alter the existing circulation system in the surrounding area.

As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to impairing the implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XVI, Wildfire, of this SCEA IS.

As noted therein, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.57 In addition, the project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of South San Francisco and is surrounded by existing development. The developed nature of the area surrounding the project site helps to preclude the spread of wildfire to the site. Thus, the potential for wildland fires to reach the project site would be limited. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
56 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November 2012. 57 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure would reduce the potentially significant impact identified above to a less-than-significant level.

VII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3.

Findings
Hazards related to development projects are typically related to the use of hazardous materials, the location of projects on a site that was previously exposed to hazardous materials, or the interference with adopted emergency response plans, among other factors. The Phase I ESA, which fulfilled the requirements of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.13-4, concluded that known RECs do not exist on the site. However, based on the age of the on-site structure and the type of bedrock underlying the site, Mitigation Measure VII-1, which requires implementation of Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3, would ensure that hazards related to NOA, ACMs, or LBPs do not occur during construction and demolition. Residential land uses do not typically involve the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials, and therefore would not create a risk associated with hazardous materials. Additionally, the project site is already developed and surrounded by existing urban infrastructure. The project would not alter or interfere with the City’s existing circulation system and, thus, the project would not interfere with circulation in a way that could impact existing emergency response or evacuation plans. As such, with implementation of the aforementioned project-specific Mitigation Measure, the project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
   
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite;     ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
   
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
   
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?    
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?    
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
   
Environmental Setting
The project site currently contains a commercial warehouse building and associated paved areas.

The site is located approximately 450 feet north of Colma Creek, and approximately one mile from the western edge of the San Francisco Bay. The site does not contain creeks, wetlands or other hydrologic features. The project site is located in a highly developed area of South San Francisco.

Currently, the project site is almost entirely comprised of impervious surfaces and, as a result, stormwater is directed to on-site drains and ultimately to the City’s stormwater system.

Stormwater
The City of South San Francisco owns and maintains the storm drain system adjacent to the site, including the 12-inch storm drain line in Airport Boulevard.

Flooding
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that delineate flood hazard zones for communities. According to FIRM Number 06081C0043F, the project site is designated as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X).58 Developments within Zone X are not required to elevate or flood proof, as risk of flooding is considered low.
58 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F. April 5, 2019. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Groundwater
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Westside Basin. The Westside Basin is not adjudicated and, in its recent evaluation of California groundwater basins, the Department of Water Resources determined that the basin is not in a condition of critical overdraft and designated it as low priority. Groundwater recharge is highest in the northwestern portions of the basin, corresponding to areas of sandy soils, and in areas with significant unpaved, irrigated land, such as golf courses and cemeteries. Recharge is lowest along the margins of San Francisco Bay, corresponding to areas with Bay Muds, and along the steep slopes of San Bruno Mountain.

Groundwater used for water supply in the Westside Basin is generally good quality and delivered water meets all State and federal regulations.59
The project site is located within the South San Francisco District of Cal Water, which would provide water service to the proposed project. The South San Francisco District of Cal Water operates five groundwater wells that are allocated an annual average pumping rate of 1.37 million gallons per day (MGD). Groundwater provides approximately 20 percent of the annual demand in the district, with the remaining demand being met by purchased surface water, as discussed further in Section XV, Utilities and Service Systems, of this SCEA IS. As such, groundwater is not a significant source of water for the City of South San Francisco.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.12 of the General Plan EIR evaluates the potential effects of the General Plan related to hydrology and water quality. Chapter 4.6 of the General Plan EIR includes a discussion of water facilities, and Chapter 4.7 of the General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to flooding. a. The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to the quality of local water resources.

Urban pollution, such as landscaping chemicals, cleaning solvents, litter, and others, can create a negative impact on water quality. However, the following General Plan policies address the issue, and would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. • 7.2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources.
• 7.2-G-2 Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination.
• 7.2-G-3 Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the city.
• 7.2-I-1 Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP [the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program] for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality.
• 7.2-I-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in STOPPP as needed.
• 7.2-I-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's website, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use.
59 Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July 2012. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
b,e. Impact 4.6-b of the General Plan EIR discusses ways the development under the General Plan would degrade or deplete groundwater quality; and Impact 4.6-c discusses impacts related to groundwater recharge. As noted therein, groundwater is not a significant source of water in the City of South San Francisco, and compliance with applicable General Plan policies, listed below, would minimize potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. • 7.2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources.
• 7.2-I-1 Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality.
ci. The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to erosion and sedimentation under Impact 4.12-b. Construction of new facilities under the General Plan could result in increased erosion and sedimentation, with subsequent impacts to water quality and/or storm drain capacity during construction. However, implementation of all applicable General Plan policies, specifically policies 7.2-I-1 and 7.2-I-2, listed above, would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
cii-d. General Plan EIR Impact 4.7-a includes an analysis of future development and increased impervious surface areas on runoff and flooding potential. South San Francisco is a highly developed urban area with a substantial amount of impervious surfaces. Further development under the General Plan would create additional impervious surfaces, which would alter drainage patterns and increase the risk of flooding. However, compliance with applicable policies within the General Plan would reduce potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level. • 7.2-I-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in STOPPP as needed.
• 8.2-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. • 8.2-I-1 Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP).
• 8.2-I-2 Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards.
• 8.2-I-3 Encourage FEMA to update the 100-year floodplain boundaries to reflect the new limits of flood hazard constraint to be determined by the completion of the Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project.

Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.8 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with future land development under the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce such impacts. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to water quality standards or waste or stormwater discharge requirements under Impact 2.8-1. Land use and transportation projects under the Plan Bay Area would likely result in a net increase of impervious surfaces. However, because existing regulations are in place to specify mandatory actions that must occur during project development, which would adequately address potential for construction or operation of projects to result in violation of water quality standards, or waste or stormwater discharge requirements, a less-thansignificant impact would occur. b,e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to interference with or reduction rates of groundwater recharge due to the increased impervious surfaces under Impact 2.8-2. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that, with compliance with existing regulations related to groundwater recharge, the impact would be less than significant. ci. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to erosion and sedimentation by altering existing drainage patterns under Impact 2.8-3. Implementation of the Plan could result in new development that could change existing drainage patterns. However, existing regulations would effectively reduce the alterations of existing drainage patterns to an acceptable level, and the impact would be less than significant. cii, ciii. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to increased rates of runoff that could cause potential flood hazards and effects on water quality under Impact 2.8-6.

All projects implemented under the Plan Bay Area would be required to adhere to the appropriate local and state requirements that are designed to ensure that flooding conditions are not exacerbated and water quality is not adversely affected. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
civ. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to placing structures within a 100-year flood hazard area under Impact 2.8-7. Existing state and federal regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows associated with projects located within a flood hazard zone to an acceptable level, and the impact would be less than significant.
d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to project inundation from flooding, tsunami, or seiche under Impact 2.8-8. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that, with compliance with existing state and federal regulations, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c), while included in the Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases section of the Plan Bay Area EIR, is related to flooding, specifically sea level rise and, thus, has been included here and would apply to the project:

2.5-4(c) Implementing agencies shall require project sponsors to incorporate the appropriate adaptation strategy or strategies to reduce the impacts of sea level rise on specific local transportation and land use development projects, where feasible, based on project- and site-specific considerations.

Potential adaptation strategies are included in the Adaptation Strategies (see Appendix F of this [Plan Bay Area] Draft EIR).
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed project’s potential to violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality during construction and operation.

Construction
During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed due to demolition, grading and excavation of the site. After grading and prior to overlaying the ground surface with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality downstream.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres. The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State’s General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s General Construction Permit requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for the site. A SWPPP describes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project. Because the proposed project would disturb greater than one acre of land, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction Permit.

In addition, the project would be required to comply with Chapter 14.04, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes standards for managing stormwater runoff during construction and operation. Per Section

14.04.180, all construction sites within the City must implement year-round erosion control, run-on and runoff control, sediment control, active treatment systems (if appropriate), good site management, and non-stormwater management through all phases of construction until the site is stabilized. Due to the mandated compliance of project construction activities with the State’s General Construction Permit and Chapter

14.04 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would not discharge sediment or urban pollutants through soil erosion, violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction.

Operation
The proposed residential building would not involve operations typically associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water. Thus, typical operations on the project site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade water quality. However, the incorporation of impervious surfaces on the site would result in the generation of urban runoff, which could contain pollutants if the runoff comes into contact with such sources as vehicle fluids on parking surfaces and/or landscape fertilizers or herbicides.

The County of San Mateo has adopted C.3 Stormwater Standards, which require new development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 or more sf of impervious area to contain and treat all stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project would replace a substantial amount of existing impervious surfaces on 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
the project site. Following implementation of the proposed project, the site would contain approximately 61,855 sf of impervious surface area. Thus, the project would be subject to the requirements of the C.3 Stormwater Standards related to stormwater treatment.

However, it is noted that the project site is already primarily covered in impervious surfaces due to the existing structure and parking area, and the entire 61,855 sf of impervious surface area associated with the proposed project would not be net new.

Per the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-0074, certain projects, including transit-oriented developed, such as the proposed project, are eligible for LID Treatment Reduction Credits. The LID Treatment Reduction Credit is the maximum percentage of the amount of runoff that may be treated with non-LID treatment measures, such as tree-box-type high flowrate biofilters or vault-based high flowrate media filters.

The proposed project qualifies for a 75 percent LID treatment reduction, meaning that 25 percent of impervious surface area will require treatment using LID retention measures, and the remaining 75 percent of impervious surface area can be treated using non-LID measures. The proposed project would treat stormwater from the project site using a combination of self-retaining/self-treating areas, bioretention, and media filters.

A preliminary Stormwater Plan has been prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 11). The proposed project would divide the site into eight total DMAs and associated treatment measures. DMA 1 includes a dog run and is self-retaining/self-treating. DMA-6 consists of landscaping along the rear of the building and is also self-retaining. DMAs 2 through 5 and 7 and 8, generally consisting of roof or concrete surfaces, would direct runoff towards separate bioretention areas or flow-through planters. The bio-retention areas would treat stormwater primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil, allowing for removal of pollutants. Additionally, as part of the project, a new eight-inch stormwater line would collect stormwater from DMA 4 and direct it towards a new PerkFilterTM media filtration vault and ultimately into the City’s stormwater system.

Per the preliminary Stormwater Plan prepared for the proposed project, all proposed stormwater treatment measures would be sized to adequately handle all runoff from the associated DMAs. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the City and County requirements and would meet the C.3 Standards related to stormwater treatment. During operation, the project would comply with all relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and would not degrade water quality.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality during construction or operation, and the projected impact would be less than significant.
b,e The proposed project would include a rezone from FC to a zoning designation that allows high-density residential. High-density residential development would involve a higher water demand when compared to the FC land use. As such, the General Plan EIR and Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed buildout of the site at a lower intensity development than what is proposed. However, per the Cal Water 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the South San Francisco District, groundwater currently accounts for approximately 20 percent of the District’s water supplies.60 The volume of groundwater pumped is planned to remain consistent over time in order to ensure sustainable 60 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District [pg. 58]. June 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
groundwater maintenance. For example, the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan notes that, while the overall water demand from the South San Francisco District service area is projected to increase, the demand will be met through a steady supply of 1,535 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater and the remaining demand will be met through purchased surface water. The projected groundwater supply meets the projected groundwater demand of 1,535 AFY.61 It is noted that, in the year 2020, 52 AFY of groundwater was pumped for municipal water use in South San Francisco.

Furthermore, per the 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report for the Westside Basin, groundwater levels were stable or trended higher in 2020 as compared to 2019 in most of the wells throughout the Westside Basin, with the exception of wells in the vicinity of Lake Merced.62
As such, even though the water demand is anticipated to increase with implementation of the proposed project, the increased demand would not impact the volume of groundwater that is pumped.

Groundwater recharge refers to the percolation of surface water, often stormwater, through pervious surfaces and into groundwater. Considering the project site is currently developed and covered in primarily impervious surfaces, the project site does not currently play a substantial role in groundwater recharge. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site. Furthermore, per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard, the Westside Groundwater Basin is considered Very Low Priority per the Department of Water Resources, and implementation of the project would not adversely affect recharge of a high priority groundwater basin.63 Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Westside Groundwater Basin. In addition, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. Thus, a less-thansignificant impact would occur. c.i-iii. The project site is currently developed and includes substantial paved areas. As noted under question ‘a’, above, the project is required to comply with C.3 Standards.

Compliance with C.3 Standards would be sufficient to ensure that the proposed project does not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain infrastructure, cause flooding on- or off-site, or result in off-site erosion or siltation after development of the site. Given that the project site is already developed and connected to the City’s storm drain infrastructure, and that the project would not result in a greater volume of stormwater runoff following implementation of the project as compared to existing conditions, the existing storm drain system would be adequate to continue serving the project site. It should be noted that, per the Countywide Hydromodification Control Area Map in the San Mateo County C.3 61 Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan [pg. 3-19]. July 2012. 62 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. April 2021. 63 Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard.

Available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/. Accessed July 16, 2020. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Stormwater Technical Guidance Appendix H, the proposed project would not be subject to Hydromodification Management requirements.64
Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Consequently, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact. c.iv. According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06081C0043F, the project site is designated as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X), with the edges of the project site designated as an 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard (Zone X).
65 As such, the site is not classified as a
Special Flood Hazard Area or otherwise located within a 100-year or 500-year floodplain.

Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impact would result.

While the effects of sea level rise on future residents is beyond the scope of CEQA, insofar as it pertains to the environment’s effect on the project, this issue has been addressed given the SCEA’s reliance on the Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA streamlining purposes.

According to Appendix B, Asset Exposure Maps, of the County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, the project site is located just outside of the projected High Scenario Sea Level Rise (SLR) boundaries.66 The High scenario shows the possible extent of flooding during a 1 percent chance annual storm plus 6.6 feet of sea level rise and is considered a worst-case scenario in the Vulnerability Assessment. As a result, adaptation strategy or strategies to reduce the impacts of sea level rise are not required for the proposed project. Thus, this SCEA demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c).
d. As discussed under paragraph ‘c.iv’ of this section, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Thus, the proposed development would not be subject to substantial flooding risks. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement, whereas a seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. While the project site is located relatively close to the Pacific Ocean (approximately one mile to the western border of the San Francisco Bay), the project site is not located within a Tsunami Inundation Area.67 Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to flooding risks associated with tsunamis. Seiches do not pose a risk to the proposed project, as the project site is not located adjacent to any closed body of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation due to flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and no impact would occur.
64 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2 [Page H-3]. January 4, 2013. 65 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F. April 5, 2019. 66 County of San Mateo. County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Final Report, Published March 2018. 67 California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: State of California, County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle. June 15, 2009. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
When development occurs in undeveloped areas, changes to site hydrology can lead to the degradation of water quality, the depletion of water quality and the exposure of structures and people to flood risk. Because the project site has already been developed, the hydrology and drainage patterns of the site would remain fairly constant. The project would involve the demolition of the existing structure, which would expose site soils to erosion; however, implementation of construction BMPs would be required to control erosion, and the proposed project would comply with all stormwater runoff regulations during operations. Additionally, the project site is not located in an area at major risk of flooding and, thus, would not increase the risk of flooding to people or structures. In addition, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-4(c), which is related to sea level rise, has been satisfied. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Hydrology or Water Quality. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?    
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
   
Environmental Setting
The pattern of land uses in the Bay Area includes a mix of open space, agriculture, developed urban centers, a variety of suburban commercial and residential areas, and scattered older towns.

South San Francisco, in particular, has a distinctive land use pattern that showcases the decision to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses. The second development trend that shaped the arrangement of land uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, which resulted in large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industrial uses in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multi-family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. According to the City’s General Plan, single family residences are the most predominant land use. However, industrial uses, including warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, comprise over a quarter of South San Francisco's area.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts related to land use are discussed in Chapter 4.2 of the General Plan EIR. However, at the time of preparation of the General Plan EIR, the CEQA checklist questions were different. As a result, due to the age of the General Plan EIR, the potential for buildout of the General Plan to physically divide an established community or to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect is not analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.3 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts related to land use and planning that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzes whether implementation of the Plan would physically divide an established community under Impact 2.3-2. The anticipated growth footprint planned for development in the Plan Bay Area is located primarily within areas that are currently developed. Consequently, the majority of the new development would occur as infill development, in accordance with the adopted land use plans and zoning ordinances of the cities and counties in the area. In fact, land use development under the Plan Bay Area would create more centralized areas of residential areas and commercial centers, and would not physically divide established communities. The Plan Bay Area EIR does 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
note, however, that implementation of transportation projects, pursuant to Plan Bay Area, could result in the physical division of established communities, thus requiring construction of replacement housing, which could result in environmental impacts. While the Plan Bay Area EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce prospective environmental impacts from construction of replacement housing, MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as those identified in the Land Use and Physical Development chapter of the Plan Bay Area EIR. Thus, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review.

However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the individual project’s impact related to construction of replacement housing would be less than significant. In the case of the proposed project, and as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project would not divide an established community and, thus, would result in a less-thansignificant impact. b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzes this impact under Impact 2.3-3. As discussed under Impact 2.3-3, projects would be required to demonstrate consistency with relevant plans in order to obtain permits and otherwise meet lead agency requirements. Project review and approval would include the consideration of project modification, alternatives, or plan amendments, as appropriate, to allow for implementation of a specific project. Per the Plan Bay Area EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.3-2 is specific to transportation projects and, therefore, is not applicable to the proposed project.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land uses so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. Currently, the project site is developed with a commercial warehouse building. The site is bound by Caltrain railroad tracks to the north, a restaurant to the south, US 101 and a hotel to the east, and Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue, commercial businesses, and industrial businesses to the west. Rather than divide an established community, the proposed project would redevelop the project site with a Transit Priority Project that meets Plan Bay Area’s intent for development within a TPA.

As such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. As noted above, the proposed project would involve a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the site for high-density residential/mixed use under the DTC land use designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment would ensure that the project is consistent with the Preferred Land Use Map included in the City’s General Plan Update.

By applying a General Plan designation that allows high-density residential uses, the proposal would qualify the project for Planned Development (PD) zoning, consistent with Chapter 20.140 of the Municipal Code. Thus, the project includes a request to rezone the site from FC to PD. The PD zoning would incorporate certain land uses and development standards from the existing DTC zoning district, including multi-family residential at a maximum density of up to 180 units per acre (subject to meeting specified criteria). The PD zoning could also incorporate land uses allowed by the existing FC zoning district that 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
the property owners want to retain. Upon approval of the aforementioned entitlements, the project would comply with all zoning and land use regulations.

Table 3 of this SCEA IS demonstrates the proposed project’s consistency with the Plan Bay Area, which constitutes a land use plan adopted for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In addition, the project would be subject to all applicable General Plan policies and would be generally consistent with the goals established therein.

As discussed throughout this SCEA IS, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation measures provided herein. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with any City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including, but not limited to, the City’s noise standards, applicable SWRCB regulations related to stormwater, and water quality standards.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.

Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
The project site is located within an urbanized area and a TPA. Therefore, the redevelopment of the project site with residential uses would be consistent with the developed nature of the surrounding area, would support the goals of the Plan Bay Area and General Plan, and would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the proposed project would not result in any unmitigable environmental impacts, and the project would be consistent with applicable land use plans that were adopted for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Land Use and Planning.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
X. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
   
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?    
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
   
Environmental Setting
The following setting information is based primarily on the Technical Noise Study prepared for the proposed project by RGD Acoustics (see Appendix G).68
The project site is located in a central area of the City of South San Francisco, surrounded by development on all sides. The noise environment of the project site would be considered typical for an urban setting, with regular traffic noise. The primary noise sources contributing the ambient noise in the project vicinity are railroad activities on the rail lines and vehicular traffic on US 101.

Other noise sources include local vehicle traffic, as well as aircraft and commercial/industrial activities. Four main Caltrain and Union Pacific Railroad lines and one spur line exist on the north side of the project site. The four main rail lines are between 80 to 120 feet from the proposed building, and the spur line is located approximately 45 feet from the proposed building. The US 101 freeway centerline is located approximately 310 feet east of the proposed building.

The project site is currently used as a produce distribution center, and noise from the associated heavy trucks and ground-level mechanical equipment contributes to the existing ambient noise environment.

Noise measurements were conducted from April 27, 2021 to April 30, 2021, to quantify the existing noise environment. The measurements consisted of two long-term, 48-hour, measurements (Locations LT-1 and LT-2) and five short-term, 15-minute, measurements (Locations ST-1 through ST-5). The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 14 below. Results of the short-term noise monitoring are presented in Table 12.

The long-term measurement at Location LT-1 was made on an existing fence north of the project site, and the measured Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) was 71 A-weighted decibels (dBA). The long-term measurement at Location LT-2 was made on a light pole east of the project site. At Location LT-2, freeway noise was typically 63 to 65 dBA during the daytime and 56 to 65 dBA during the nighttime. The measured CNEL at Location LT-2 was 70 dBA. 68 RGD Acoustics. Draft Technical Noise Study for: 40 Airport Boulevard. August 23, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Figure 14
Noise Measurement Locations
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 12
Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
Site Location Date/Time Leq L50 CNEL*
Pandemic
adjusted
CNEL**
ST-1 Near setback of Project Building
from railroad tracks
4/27/21
6:38 PM –
6:53 PM
66 64 69 71
ST-2
East side of project on easement
road between project site and La
Quinta Hotel
4/27/21
6:13 PM –
6:28 PM
66 65 72 74
ST-3
Southeast side of project on
easement road between project
site and La Quinta Hotel
4/27/21
7:08 PM –
7:29 PM
68 65 73 74
ST-4 Airport Blvd
4/30/21
5:42 PM –
5:57 PM
68 66 70 72
ST-5 South Airport Blvd
4/30/21
6:06 PM –
6:23 PM
71 70 74 76
* CNEL calculated based on correlation between simultaneous long-term and short-term measurements. ** Includes factor to account for traffic and Caltrain volume reduction during coronavirus pandemic.

Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021.

Train passbys generated maximum instantaneous noise levels typically ranging from 75 to 86 dBA, and occasionally ranging from 88 to 100 dBA at LT-1. The maximum instantaneous noise levels were generally less at LT-2 due to acoustical shielding and additional distance from the railroad tracks. The noise events with Lmax greater than 86 dBA were due to train horns. The Caltrain schedule effective May 2022 shows Caltrain service from 5:08 AM to 12:33 AM for the South San Francisco station. The schedule also shows that before 9:00 PM there are generally two northbound and two southbound trains per hour including those that bypass the South San Francisco station.

Regulatory Setting
Chapter 8.32 of the City’s Noise Ordinance specifies maximum permissible sound levels to be generated by any property within the City. The maximum allowable level is determined by the land use category of the receiving property, as shown in Table 13 below.

Table 13
Noise Level Standards
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB)
R-E, R-1, R-2, or any single-family or
duplex residential in a specific plan district
10 PM – 7 AM
7 AM – 10 PM
50 60
R-3 and D-C zones, or any multi-family
residential or mixed residential/commercial
in a specific plan district
10 PM – 7 AM
7 AM – 10 PM
55 60
C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster Point
Marina specific plan district, or any
commercial use in a specific plan district
10 PM – 7 AM
7 AM – 10 PM
60 65
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
The levels shown in Table 13 are applicable for noises that occur up to 30 minutes per hour.

Higher noise levels are allowed, but for shorter periods of time, or if the ambient noise level is higher than the standards presented in the table.

The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050 provides special provisions for construction-generated noise as outlined below:
(d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:
(1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible.
(2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. (Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990)
These exemptions are typical of City and County Noise Ordinances and reflect the recognition that construction-related noise is temporary in character, is generally acceptable when limited to daylight hours, and is what residents of urban areas periodically expect as part of a typical urban noise environment (along with sirens, pedestrian noise, etc.).

The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes guidelines for noise as well, summarized in Table 14 below.

Table 14
General Plan Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas Land Use
CNEL
Range General Land Use Criteria
Residential
<65 Satisfactory; no special requirements.
65-70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and insulation as needed.
>70 Development should not be undertaken.

Commercial
<70 Satisfactory; no special requirements.
70-80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and insulation as needed.
>80 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided.

Industrial
<75 Satisfactory; no special requirements.
75-85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and insulation as needed.
>85 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided.

Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts related to noise are discussed in Chapter 4.5 of the General Plan EIR. a. The General Plan EIR discussion focuses on development of new residential uses in areas of increased noise levels. This analysis, which considers the effects of the environment on future residents, is not required under CEQA, as the court confirmed in California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District (62 Cal.4th 369, December 17, 2015). The focus of CEQA pertains to the effect of the project on the physical environment. In the context of noise, this would include such things as a project’s increase in traffic noise along surrounding roadways, or effects of onsite stationary noise sources on nearby receptors. The General Plan EIR does not specifically evaluate such effects. Nevertheless, the General Plan includes policies that address potential project noise effects, as follows:
• 9-G-1 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. • 9-I-4 Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. • 9-I-5 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL obtain the service of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures.
• 9-I-6 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical.
• 9-G-1 Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.
• 9-I-4 Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. • 9-I-5 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL obtain the service of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures.
• 9-I-6 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical.
b. A discussion of impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise is not included within the General Plan EIR.
c. The General Plan EIR analyses impacts related to airport noise under Impact 4.5-b. As noted therein, buildout of the General Plan would not site noise-sensitive land uses within the 65 dB contour from the San Francisco International Airport. In addition, the General 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Plan EIR notes that the 65 dB noise contour will likely shrink in size over time due to engine upgrades. With the implementation of the following General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant.
• 9-I-1 Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs.
• 9-I-2 Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls.

Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.6 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to noise that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a,b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to construction noise and/or construction-generated groundborne vibration under Impact 2.6-1. Impacts related to a permanent increase in traffic noise and rail transit noise are discussed in Impacts 2.6-2 and 2.6-3, respectively. Impacts related to a permanent increase in transit vibration are discussed in Impact 2.6-4, and impacts related to a general increase in ambient noise is discussed in Impact 2.6-5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.6-1(a) and 2.6-1(b) related to construction-generated noise and vibration, 2.6-2 related to traffic noise, 2.6- 3(a) through 2.6-3(c) related to transit-generated noise, 2.6-4(a) and 2.6-4(b) related to transit-generated vibration, and 2.6-5 related to compliance with local regulations, would reduce all such impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, a project’s impacts related to noise would be less than significant.

In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the City of South San Francisco will ensure that Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(a) would be implemented to reduce potential impacts related to construction noise to a less-than-significant level. In addition, this SCEA demonstrates that impacts related to construction vibration would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to construction noise and construction-generated groundborne vibration.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to increased noise exposure from aircraft or airports under Impact 2.6-6. Projected development could potentially be located in close proximity to existing airports such that applicable exterior and interior noise thresholds would be exceeded. Mitigation Measure 2.6-6 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022

2.6-6, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the abovereferenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, a project’s impact related to aircraft noise would be less than significant.

In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the project site is located within “Airport Influence Area B” and the proposed land use may be permitted without any special requirements related to the attenuation of aircraft noise. Therefore, the project-specific impact related to aircraft or airport noise would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-3(c) is specific to transportation projects and 2.6-4(b) is specific to rail extension projects. Therefore, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-3(c) and 2.6-4 (b) would not apply. In addition, Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(b) applies to use of pile driving during construction. The project applicant has indicated that pile driving will not be used during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(b) is not applicable. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6-1(a), 2.6-2, 2.6-3(a) and (b), 2.6-4(a), 2.6-5, and 2.6-6 would apply to the proposed project.

2.6-1(a) To reduce construction noise levels, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall:
• comply with local construction-related noise standards, including restricting construction activities to permitted hours as defined under local jurisdiction regulations (e.g.; Alameda County Code restricts construction noise to between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekend);
• properly maintain construction equipment and outfit construction equipment with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g. mufflers, silencers, wraps);
• prohibit idling of construction equipment for extended periods of time in the vicinity of sensitive receptors;
• locate stationary equipment such as generators, compressors, rock crushers, and cement mixers a minimum of 50 feet from sensitive receptors, but further if possible;
• erect temporary construction-noise barriers around the construction site when adjacent occupied sensitive land uses are present within 75 feet; • use noise control blankets on building structures as buildings are erected to reduce noise emission from the site; and
• use cushion blocks to dampen impact noise from pile driving.

2.6-2 For all new development that could be located within the 70 dBA CNEL noise contour of a roadway (within 270 feet of the roadway’s centerline based on freeways with the greatest volumes in the region), a site specific noise study shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer or noise specialist, to evaluate noise exposure at new receptors and recommend appropriate measures to reduce noise exposure. To reduce exposure from traffic-noise, lead agencies and/or 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
project sponsors shall consider mitigation measures including, but not limited to those identified below:
• design adjustments to proposed roadway or transit alignments to reduce noise levels in noise sensitive areas (e.g., below-grade roadway alignments can effectively reduce noise levels in nearby areas); • use techniques such as landscaped berms, dense plantings, reducednoise paving materials, and traffic calming measures in the design of their transportation improvements;
• contribute to the insulation of buildings or construction of noise barriers around sensitive receptor properties adjacent to the transportation improvement;
• use land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on development, site design, and buffers to ensure that future development is noise compatible with adjacent transportation facilities and land uses; • construct roadways so that they are depressed below-grade of the existing sensitive land uses to create an effective barrier between new roadway lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers, park- n-ride lots, and other new noise generating facilities; and
• maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new noisegenerating facilities and transportation systems.

2.6-3(a) When finalizing development project site plans, noise-sensitive outdoor use areas shall be sited as far away from adjacent noise sources as possible and site plans shall be designed to shield noise-sensitive spaces with buildings or noise barriers whenever possible.

2.6-3(b) When finalizing development project site plans or transportation project design, sufficient setback between occupied structures and the railroad tracks shall be provided to minimize noise exposure to the extent feasible.

2.6-4(a) When finalizing site plans for a development or transportation project, implementing agencies shall conduct a project-level noise and vibration assessments for new residential or other sensitive land uses to be located within 200 feet of an existing rail line. These studies shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer or noise specialist to determine vibration levels at these projects and recommend feasible mitigation measures (e.g., insulated windows and walls, sound walls or barriers, distance setbacks, or other construction or design measures) that would reduce vibration-noise to an acceptable level.

2.6-5 To reduce exposure to new and existing sensitive receptors from nontransportation noise associated with projected development, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• Local agencies approving land use projects shall require that routine testing and preventive maintenance of emergency electrical generators be conducted during the less sensitive daytime hours (per the applicable local municipal code). Electrical generators or other mechanical equipment shall 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
be equipped with noise control (e.g., muffler) devices in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications.
• Local agencies approving land use projects shall require that external mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, associated with buildings incorporate features designed to reduce noise to below 70 dBA CNEL or the local applicable noise standard. These features may include, but are not limited to, locating equipment within equipment rooms or enclosures that incorporate noise reduction features, such as acoustical louvers, and exhaust and intake silencers. Equipment enclosures shall be oriented so that major openings (i.e., intake louvers, exhaust) are directed away from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

2.6-6 To reduce exposure from airport-related noise, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:

Local lead agencies for all new development proposed to be located within an existing airport influence zone, as defined by the locally adopted airport land use compatibility plan or local general plan, shall require a site-specific noise compatibility. The study shall consider and evaluate existing aircraft noise, based on specific aircraft activity data for the airport in question, and shall include recommendations for site design and building construction to ensure compliance with interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL, such that the potential for sleep disturbance is minimized.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise. In the vicinity of the project site, the nearest residential zone is located approximately 400 feet north of the project site.

Construction
Noise from demolition and construction activities would add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. Construction activity is estimated to begin in March 2023 with an overall duration of 29 months. The demolition phase is estimated to last 30 days. Site preparation including grading activities would last an estimated four months. The project building construction would last 29 months and the paving activities would occur for less than 30 days. According to the project applicant, there will be no pile driving during construction.

The City’s Municipal Code sets allowable construction hours, provided that noise from individual equipment does not exceed 90 dBA at 25 feet, and the noise at any point outside the property plane does not exceed 90 dBA.

Table 15 presents typical noise levels for the construction equipment that is expected to be used for the project, as well as the noise levels at a distance of 25 feet for comparison with the City’s noise ordinance.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 15
Standard Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Construction Equipment
Reference Noise Level
at 50 feet, dBA*
Calculated Noise Level
at 25 feet, dBA
Excavator 81 87
Rubber Tired Dozer 82 88
Backhoe 78 84
Tractor 84 90
Loader 79 85
Crane 81 87
Forklift 83 89
Welder 74 80
Air Compressor 78 84
Man lift 75 81
Cement and Mortar Mixer 79 85
Paver 77 83
Roller 80 86
Source: FHWA, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006.

Construction activities are permitted by the City’s Municipal Code during allowable construction hours provided that either noise from individual equipment does not exceed 90 dBA at 25 feet or the noise level at any point outside the property plane does not exceed 90 dBA. As shown in the table, none of the identified pieces of construction equipment would generate noise over 90 dB at 25 feet. Therefore, given the expected noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment, the size of the project site, and the intermittent nature of equipment use, project construction would not result in noise levels that exceed 90 dBA outside of the property plane. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the construction noise regulations set forth in the City’s Municipal Code.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to construction noise. Nevertheless, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure

2.6-1(a), which offers recommendations to reduce construction noise to the maximum extent feasible, would apply to the proposed project.

Operations
The primary sources of operational noise associated with the proposed project would be from project-generated vehicular traffic and mechanical equipment noise. The foregoing noise sources are discussed separately below.

Traffic Noise
For the purposes of this analysis, project-specific traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers were evaluated for associated noise levels under the Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios at the Produce Avenue intersection and the South Airport Boulevard/US 101 on-ramp intersection.

The project’s draft transportation impact analysis (TIA) shows a project-generated net new trips of 49 during the AM peak hour and 51 during the PM peak hour. The vehicle trips generated by the project would represent a very small percentage of overall daily and peak hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the traffic study area. According to the Technical Noise Study, the increase in traffic volumes between the Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios, due to the proposed project, would be less than one percent. This 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
increase in traffic volumes corresponds to an increase of less than 0.1 dBA of transportation noise. According to the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), in places where the ambient noise level is greater than 65 dB, such as the project site (refer to Table 12), a noise level increase of 1.5 dB or greater is considered to be significant. Therefore, the project-generated increase in traffic noise of less than 0.1 dBA is considered to be less than significant.

Cumulative growth is considered reasonably foreseeable growth in the area that is not directly related to the proposed project. For instance, vehicular traffic will increase in the City due to growth that is not directly related to the proposed project. The difference in traffic volumes between the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios is less than one percent, which corresponds to a project future traffic noise contribution of less than 0.1 dBA. Therefore, the project’s contribution to increases in cumulative traffic noise would be less than significant.

In addition, following implementation of the project, vehicle access would be provided along the easement road between the proposed project and the neighboring La Quinta Hotel. Based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) and using the project’s peak hour traffic volumes, an equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) of 51 dBA at 20 feet was calculated from the roadway centerline. As compared to the noise measurements along the easement road (LT-2 and ST-3), the increase in traffic noise CNEL due to the proposed project would be less than 1 dBA. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Mechanical Equipment
The proposed project would include mechanical equipment generally associated with building ventilation, such as rooftop air-conditioning units and ventilation fans. The architectural roof plan in the drawing set, dated 12/3/2020, shows the proposed locations of 271 heat pumps. The exact mechanical equipment model has not been determined so for the purpose of this report, RGD analyzed the noise from the heat pumps using data from another similar project, which used heat pumps by Carrier (CH16NA series).

According to the City’s Municipal Code, maximum permissible sound levels from a project are determined by the land use category of the receiving property. The permissible levels are in terms of L50 and are shown in Municipal Code Table 8.32.030. For the purpose of this analysis, noise from mechanical equipment is assessed against the most restrictive nighttime noise standard (when ambient noise is quietest) at each of the nearest receivers.

Table 16 presents the calculations for each exterior noise standard. As shown therein, the applicable noise limit for the project’s mechanical equipment is an L50 of 60 dBA at the La Quinta Hotel and Denny’s Restaurant, an L50 of 58 dBA at the recently approved multifamily residential project to the west, an L50 of 56 dBA at the multi-family residential building to the north, and an L50 of 70 dBA at the mixed-industrial uses across the railroad tracks.

The estimated noise from the mechanical equipment on the proposed building rooftop at each nearby receiver is presented in Table 17. As demonstrated in the table, the project’s mechanical equipment noise is expected to be below the applicable noise standards at all receiving locations. However, because the exact mechanical equipment models have not been determined and analyzed, the potential exists that the actual mechanical equipment could result in noise levels at the nearby receivers that exceed the applicable standards. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Table 16
Determination of Mechanical Equipment Noise Standard
Receivers
La Quinta
Hotel
Denny’s
Restaurant
Future MultiFamily
Residential
Project to
the West1
New MultiFamily
Residential
Project to
the North2
MixedIndustrial
Zones
across
Railroad
Tracks
Zoning Designation FC FC PD DTC MI
Land Use Category
(per Table 8.32.030)
Commercial
Use
Commercial
Use
Multiple-Family
Residential
Multiple-Family
Residential M-1
Base Nighttime
Noise Standard
(L50, dBA)
60 60 55 55 70
Nighttime Ambient
(L50, dBA) 57 – 67 59 - 68 58 - 68 56 - 66 56 - 66
Adjustment for
Ambient Noise
(if ambient noise
exceeds standard)
0 0 +3 +1 0
Applicable Nighttime
Noise Standard with
Ambient Correction
(L50, dBA)
60 60 58 56 70
Notes:
1 PS Business Park Project 2 150 Airport Boulevard Project Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021.

Table 17
Estimated Mechanical Equipment Noise Level
at Nearby Receivers (L50, dBA)
Receivers
La Quinta
Hotel
Denny’s
Restaurant
Future MultiFamily
Residential
Project to
the West1
New MultiFamily
Residential
Project to
the North2
MixedIndustrial
Zones
across
Railroad
Tracks
Calculated Noise
Level 55 52 51 45 48
Applicable Nighttime
Noise Standard with
Ambient Correction
60 60 58 56 70
Exceeds Standard? NO NO NO NO NO
Notes:
1 PS Business Park Project 2 150 Airport Boulevard Project Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction activities and traffic noise generated by the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code. In addition, operation of the proposed rooftop HVAC equipment is not anticipated to result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code. However, because specific rooftop equipment has not yet been selected, the potential exists for mechanical equipment to generate noise in excess of the City’s applicable standards. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-5 requires that features be incorporated into project design such that mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, shall not generate noise levels over 70 dBA CNEL (or the applicable local noise standard). Implementation of Plan Bay Area Measure 2.6-5 would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

The City will require the implementation of such mitigation as a condition of approval and, thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Projects that are taking advantage of CEQA streamlining provisions of SB 375 must implement the relevant mitigation measures prescribed within the applicable EIR. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-1(a), which offers recommendations to further reduce construction noise, is hereby incorporated as a requirement of the proposed project and would be included as a part of the conditions of approval. b. Residential land uses do not typically generate groundborne noise or groundborne vibration during operations. It is noted, however, that Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-4(a), which relates to vibration impacts from existing rail lines on proposed residential land uses, would be applicable to the project pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2.

The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the project would occur during construction activities such as demolition, grading and utility placement. Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Neither CEQA nor the City of South San Francisco, specifies acceptable vibration levels from construction activities. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the guideline criteria for building damage recommended by Caltrans is used. The construction vibration damage criteria range from a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 0.25 inches/sec for historic and some old buildings to 0.5 inches/sec for modern industrial/commercial buildings.

The nearest neighboring building is the La Quinta Hotel to the east of the project site, across the easement road. At the closest point, the project site is approximately 38 feet from the hotel.

Table 18 shows the construction vibration levels that would be experienced at the hotel building and the Denny’s restaurant building to the south. Other buildings are located across roadways at distances of more than 110 feet from the nearest project site boundary and would be exposed to lower construction vibration levels. As previously noted, pile driving would not occur during construction.

As shown in the table, the maximum vibration levels would be approximately 0.11 PPV, which falls below the 0.5 PPV threshold for damage to modern buildings. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Based on the above, the project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Table 18
Calculated Vibration Levels from Construction
(PPV in inches/sec)
Equipment
La Quinta Hotel
(20 Airport Blvd)
Denny’s Restaurant
(10 Airport Blvd)
38 feet from Equipment 70 feet from Equipment
Vibratory Roller 0.11 0.04
Hoe Ram 0.05 0.02
Large Bulldozer 0.05 0.02
Caisson Drilling 0.05 0.02
Loaded Trucks 0.04 0.02
Jackhammer 0.02 0.01
Small Bulldozer < 0.01 < 0.01
Source: RGD Acoustics, 2021.
c. The project site is located within the vicinity of the San Francisco International Airport.

However, according to the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, the project site is located outside the CNEL 65 dB aircraft noise contour and within “Airport Influence Area B”. Multi-family residential land uses are compatible with aircraft CNEL below 65 dBA, and may be permitted without any special requirements related to the attenuation of aircraft noise.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

As noted previously, projects that are taking advantage of CEQA streamlining provisions of SB 375 must implement the relevant mitigation measures prescribed within the applicable EIR. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6, which requires specific considerations for construction within an adopted airport land use plan, is hereby incorporated as a requirement of the proposed project and would be included as a part of the conditions of approval.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
Urban environments tend to include various sources of noise such as vehicle traffic, trains, buses, pedestrians, and sirens. Project construction would add to this noise environment through demolition, site preparation and construction activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to generate noise levels that exceed the standards set forth in the Municipal Code. In addition, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6- 1(a) would address construction noise and ensure that such impact is less-than-significant.

Operation of the project would involve normal residential land use, which is not typically considered to be a noise-generating land use. In addition, Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.6- 5 would ensure that the rooftop HVAC equipment selected for the project complies with City noise standards. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial groundborne noise or groundbrone vibration, and the project would not result in substantial impacts related to noise from the nearby airport. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Measures 2.6-1(a), 2.6-2, 2.6-3(a) and (b), 2.6-4(a), 2.6-5, and 2.6-6 apply to the proposed project, could be feasibly implemented, and are hereby incorporated as requirements of this SCEA IS. With application of the aforementioned Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Noise. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other Public Facilities?    
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco provides fire, police, and parks and recreation services in the vicinity of the project site.

The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, code enforcement, fire investigation, and public education services throughout the City. The SSFFD also works with the City’s Economic and Community Development Department to ensure that all new developments are built in compliance with local and state building and fire codes, and include adequate emergency access and on-site fire protection measures. The SSFFD has five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. The project site is located within Fire Station Response Area 61, which is serviced by Station 61, located at 480 North Canal Street, approximately 0.45-mile west of the site. As of 2019, SSFFD staff includes 72 full-time equivalent firefighter and emergency medical employees and 19.8 hourly and contract employees.
69 As of January 2019, the SSFFD has a current service ratio of 1.1 fulltime firefighters and emergency medical personnel per 1,000 residents. The City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element does not identify a personnel-to-service population target ratio.

The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) is principally responsible for providing police protection services within the jurisdictional limits of the City. As of 2019, the SSFPD had a total of 118 employees, with 83 sworn officers and 35 civilian positions.70 According to the General Plan Policy 8.5-I-1, the SSFPD strives to maintain 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. As of January 2019, the SSFPD has a current service ratio of 1.2 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, which is below the goal set forth in the General Plan. In 2018-2019, the SSFPD response times to Priority 1 (emergency) calls averaged 3:51 minutes and non-emergency Priority 2 and 3 calls averaged 5:35 and 7:31 minutes, respectively. The SSFPD considers such response times acceptable.71
The project site is within the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). SSFUSD has nine elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools, and serves 69 City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update: Parks + Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. November 2019. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
approximately 8,438 students.72 According to the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment, the total SSFUSD capacity is 12,600 students, and the current utilization (as of 2017) is 70.3 percent.

The City of South San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation manages over 270 acres of parks and open space. Pursuant to General Plan Policy 5.1, the City aims to achieve a parkland ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents. Because the policy explicitly identifies developed parkland as a goal, undeveloped open space is not included in the service ratio calculation. Considering developed parkland only, the City has a park ratio of approximately 2.6 acres per 1,000 residents.
73 The closest parks to the project site are Francisco Terrace Playlot, Sister Cities Park, and City Hall Playlot. The South San Francisco Public Library is located at 840 West Orange Avenue, approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential effects of the General Plan on various public services, including police, fire protection, schools, libraries and emergency services in Chapters

4.8 and 4.9.
a. Impacts to fire protection are discussed under Impact 4.8-c of the General Plan EIR.

Anticipated population growth resulting from implementation of the General Plan would increase the demand for fire protection services. However, implementation of General Plan Policy 8.5-I-5, which requires coordination with applicable fire protection providers and compliance with local, regional, State, and federal plans, would ensure that adequate fire protection service would be provided as development occurs, and the impact would be less than significant.
b. Impacts to police protection are discussed under Impact 4.8-a of the General Plan EIR.

As noted therein, new development under the General Plan would increase the demand for police service. However, the General Plan includes policies, listed below, which would ensure the provision of police service as demand grows, and impacts would be less than significant.
• 8.5-G-1 Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. • 8.5-G-2 Assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design.
• 8.5-I-1 Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times.
• 8.5-I-2 Control and/or intervene in conduct recognized as threatening to life and property.
• 8.5-I-3 Reduce crime by strengthening the police/community partnership. • 8.5-1-4 Assess community needs and expectations on an ongoing basis and report periodically to the City Council on citizen complaints and citizen commendations received.
• 8.5-I-5 Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, state and federal plans.
72 Education Data Partnership. South San Francisco Unified. Available at: http://www.ed-data.org/district/SanMateo/South-San-Francisco-Unified. Accessed July 16, 2020. 73 City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update: Parks + Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. November 2019.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
c. Impacts to the SSFUSD are discussed under Impact 4.10-a. As population increases under development of the General Plan, demand for local schools would increase. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts to local schools would be less than significant with implementation of the following General Plan policies:
• 5.2-G-1 Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to maintain and improve educational facilities and services. • 5.2-I-1 Work with the SSFUSD on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational purposes.
d,e. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impact related to recreational facilities under Impact 4.9-a. Under General Plan Policy 5.1-I-2, listed below, development within the City shall maintain the required park acreage ratio. In addition, buildout of the City pursuant to the General Plan land use designations would achieve the City’s parkland goals. Therefore, impacts were considered to be less than significant.
• 5.1-I-2 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas.

Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.14 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impact to public services that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. a-e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the need for expanding facilities in order to maintain adequate schools, emergency services, police, fire, and park and recreation services under Impact 2.14-1. Development projects that result in land use changes could cause potentially significant impacts related to public service provision.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.14-1 requires individual projects to demonstrate adequate public services and related infrastructure are available to serve the project, and if applicable, payment of fees towards the project’s fair share portion of the requires services. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.14-1, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impacts related to public services would be less than significant.

As discussed in further detail below, implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.14-1 is applicable to the proposed project:

2.14-1 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include but are not limited to:
• Prior to approval of new development projects, local agencies shall ensure that adequate public services, and related infrastructure and utilities, will be available to meet or satisfy levels identified in the applicable local general plan or service master plan, through compliance with existing local policies related to minimum levels of service for schools, police protection, fire protection, medical emergency services, and other government services (e.g., libraries, prisons, social services). Compliance may include requiring projects to either provide the additional services required to meet service levels, or pay fees towards the project’s fair share portion of the required services pursuant to adopted fee programs and State law.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The proposed project would include development of a 292-unit multi-family residential development. As noted above, the SSFFD currently serves the project site, and the nearest fire stations to the project site are Stations 61 and 62, both located approximately

0.4-mile away. The population increase resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be expected to increase the demand for SSFFD services at the project site.

The 2017 Municipal Services Assessment provides incident rates that can be used to estimate the number of incremental fire and emergency response calls that would result from buildout of the proposed project. Based on the addition of 292 residential units from the proposed project and the incident rate of 0.1066 average annual calls per residential unit, the project could be anticipated to result in approximately 31 additional firefighter/emergency response calls per year, or approximately one call every 12 days. 74 The addition of less than one call per week would not generate the need for a new fire station to serve the proposed project. As such, the project would not result in demand for a new or physically altered fire station, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The proposed project would be subject to payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee (Fund 821), which is a fee program intended to fund a new development’s fair share of new or expanded facilities and equipment for fire and police services. Furthermore, the project would include fire protection features, including fire alarm systems, fire extinguisher systems, fire sprinklers, and exit illumination, as required by the California Fire Code, adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.24.010.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not generate a substantially increased demand for fire protection services, the project would contribute to the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee, and would comply with all required fire protection features. As a result, the 74 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report [Table A-1].

November 2017.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
need for new or physically altered facilities would not be induced by the proposed project and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The additional population from implementation of the proposed project would create an increased demand in police services to the project area. As noted above, the project site is currently serviced by the SSFPD, located at 33 Arroyo Drive, approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site.

Implementation of the proposed project would increase the service population for the SSFPD. The proposed project would result in the development of 292 additional residential units. Based on the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment’s identified incident rate of 0.1476 average annual calls per residential unit, buildout of the proposed project could potentially result in approximately 43 more police response calls per year.75 At a limited service demand of approximately one additional call every eight days, the proposed project would not individually generate sufficient new demand for a new police station. The project would not result in demand for a new or physically altered police station, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee for the provision of public services. Therefore, the need for new or physically altered facilities would not be induced by the project and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The proposed project consists of 292 multi-family residential units, which would generate additional students in the area. The SSFUSD does not place caps on enrollment at any of its schools, and regulates school capacity based on class size rather than school size.

Furthermore, as of 2017, the SSFUSD was operating at 70.3 percent capacity and, thus, adequate capacity is expected to be available to accommodate additional students generated by the proposed project.

Proposition 1A/SB 50 (1999) prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “legislative or adjudicative act involving the planning, use, or development of real property.” (Government Code 65996[b]) Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” (Id.) Therefore, according to SB 50, the payment of the necessary school impact fees for the project would be full and satisfactory CEQA mitigation.

The project would be required to pay statutory developer fees under SB 50, payment of which would be used to fund school facilities and accommodate increased demand. As such, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to schools.
d,e. The project consists of redeveloping a lot that contains existing a commercial warehouse building with 292 new multi-family residential units, which would increase the population in the area. Based on the City of South San Francisco Housing Element, the City averages approximately 3.0 persons per household.
76 Thus, assuming the average persons per
75 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report [Table A-2].

November 2017. 76 City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Housing Element 2015-2023. April 2015. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
household rate applies to all 292 units, the population of the project would be approximately 876 residents (292 units x 3.0 persons per household = 876 residents). As noted above, General Plan policies, such as Policy 5.1-I-2, have been adopted to ensure adequate parks and recreational facilities are provided to accommodate the increase in new residents and maintain the City’s parkland ratio of at least three acres per 1,000 residents.

The project includes outdoor spaces and courtyards, but not dedicated parkland. For instance, the project includes a dog run, outdoor courtyard, fitness center, club room, and roof deck. However, the project applicant is still subject to payment of a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee. The amount of the fee would be calculated based on Section 8.67.020 of the Municipal Code. The Park Fees would be used to fund acquisition of park land and construction of park facilities within the City, including acquisition of land for public parks and capital improvements necessary to provide park and recreation services to meet the demand created by the proposed project. Considering the applicant would be required to pay all applicable parkland impact fees, impacts related to parks and other facilities would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
The proposed project would introduce new residents into the project area and, therefore, increase local demand for public services, including fire protection, police, schools, parks, and other services. However, the projected increase in demand for such services would be relatively minor, and the project applicant would pay all applicable development impact fees consistent with City requirements and Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.14-1. Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would not result in the need for new public facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could result in additional environmental effects, in order to maintain adequate Public Services.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
XII. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
   
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
   
Environmental Setting
The Bay Area includes over one million acres of parkland, and San Mateo County, which includes the City of South San Francisco, has a parkland ratio of 156 acres per 1,000 residents.77 The project site is within one mile of several neighborhood and City parks, including Paradise Valley Pocket Park, Francisco Terrace Playlot, Orange Memorial Park, the Centennial Dog Park, and Sign Hill Park, among others. In July of 2015, the City adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which includes an inventory of existing park systems and identifies a plan to expand and improve parkland in the future.78
Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67, Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, development projects within the City, including multi-family residential projects, are subject to payment of a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee to ensure that funds are available to maintain a parkland ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents and 0.5-acre per 1,000 employees.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.9 of the General Plan EIR considered the effects of the General Plan on the City’s existing parkland, recreational facilities, and open space.
a,b. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impact related to recreational facilities under Impact 4.9-a. Under General Plan Policy 5.1-I-2, development within the City shall maintain the required park acreage as discussed above. In addition, buildout of the City pursuant to the General Plan land use designations would achieve the City’s parkland goals. Therefore, impacts were considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.14 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impact to recreational facilities that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts.
a,b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to recreational facilities under Impact 2.14-2. As noted therein, implementation of the Plan Bay Area would directly 77 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2040 EIR. 78 City of South San Francisco. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. July 22, 2015. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
increase demand of recreational facilities. However, because impacts related to parks and recreation would be managed by local jurisdictions, and because the Plan discourages development within identified Priority Conservation Areas, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. The proposed project would include the development of 292 multi-family residential units, as well as 17,566 sf of amenity space consisting of a residential café, community room, leasing office, dog run, and dog spa on the first level; bicycle storage on the second level; storage units on the second and third levels; a podium deck/courtyard and fitness center on the fourth level; and a club room and roof deck on the eighth floor. Therefore, the proposed project design includes recreational facilities for use by future residents.

Nonetheless, the increase in local population from the proposed project could result in an increased demand on local recreational facilities. Section 8.67.050 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that multi-family residential developments pay the applicable Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee at the time of project approval. Payment of such fees are intended to fund parkland acquisition and improvements, and would address any potential impacts to local recreational facilities. Because the project developer would be required to pay the appropriate Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee, impacts related to causing or accelerating substantial physical deterioration of existing parks or creating a need for the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
The proposed residential development would increase the demand on local parks and recreational facilities. Because the project would include on-site recreational amenities and the project developer would be required to pay a Parkland Acquisition Fee and Park Construction Fee to fund purchases of addition parkland and associated parkland construction, the proposed project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Recreation. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
XIII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
   
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?    
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Environmental Setting
The proposed project qualifies as a Transit Priority Project (TPP) under SB 375. Environmental documents for TPPs are not required to reference, describe or discuss impacts from car and light duty truck trips on the regional transportation network (PRC Section 21159.28(a)). The project site is within a TPA, as identified by the MTC/ABAG. TPAs are characterized by allowing access to multiple forms of transportation including alternative means of transportation such as transit, bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian infrastructure.

The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels.

Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacity-increasing improvements, which often had their own environmental impacts (e.g., to biological resources). Depending on circumstances, and an agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its general plan), LOS D, E, or F often represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.

OPR may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.” Subdivision (b)(2) of section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (Italics added.) Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”79
The following setting information is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix H).80
Roadway Facilities
The project site is located adjacent to the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and Produce Avenue.

Regional access to the site is provided by US 101 and Airport Boulevard to the north, and US 101 and San Mateo Avenue to the south. Vehicular access to the project site is provided by a shared driveway/easement road on Airport Boulevard, located immediately north of the intersection of Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Key local roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below:
• US 101 is an eight-lane freeway and principal north-south roadway connection between San Francisco, San Jose, and intermediate San Francisco Peninsula cities. In South San Francisco, US 101 is located approximately 300 feet east of the project site and serves the project area with three primary access points. Near the project site, US 101 carries about 220,000 vehicles per day and defines the East of 101 area’s western edge and barrier to east-west bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Access points include:
o South Airport Boulevard: northbound on- and off-ramps are located at South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane. The South Airport Boulevard access point is to the south of the project site; and
o Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard: Two southbound off-ramps exist near the project site: one at Produce Avenue and another at Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue. The off-ramp at Produce Avenue is located to the south of the project site and the off-ramp at Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue is located to the north of the project site.
• Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane north-south arterial running roughly parallel to US 101 in South San Francisco. Freeway ramps north of Grand Avenue provide alternate project site access from the north. Airport Boulevard also provides direct access to the project site by a shared driveway located approximately 100 feet north of the intersection with San Mateo Avenue.
• Produce Avenue is a three-lane arterial providing access from the project site to Southbound US 101.
• San Mateo Avenue is a two-lane arterial connecting El Camino Real with Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard, providing local access to the project site. 79 Subdivision (b)(2) of section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. 80 Fehr & Peers. 40 Airport Blvd Transportation Impact Analysis. April 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Transit System
The following transit services operate within South San Francisco and are accessible from the project site (see Figure 15):
• Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose, and limited-service trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains, with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from 5:40 AM to 12:00 AM, with approximately 30-minute headways during peak times and 60-minute headways during off-peak times. As of January 2022, Caltrain has opened a new South San Francisco Caltrain Station located approximately 0.4-mile north of the project site, near the East Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. The new station provides more direct pedestrian access to the project site via a pedestrian underpass with access at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. Pedestrians can walk directly between the project site and the Caltrain Station along Airport Boulevard without needing to cross the street. • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont in the East Bay. The San Bruno Station is the closest station to the project site, located about 1.5- miles to the south. BART trains provide weekday service from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM and operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during offpeak hours. • San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service in San Mateo County. Two bus stops are located near the project site, served by Routes 292 and 397 (late night service only). One stop is approximately 0.2-mile to the north, near the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Baden Avenue, and the other stop is approximately

0.4-mile to the southeast, near the US 101 NB Off-ramp at Wondercolor Lane. Route 292 operates every 20 minutes on weekdays and Route 397 operates every 60 minutes.

Farther north, Routes 130 and 141 stop at the intersection of Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue. Route 130 operates every 15 minutes during weekdays, while Route 141 operates every 30 minutes.
• Three Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org) shuttles provide weekday service near the project site. The shuttles (Oyster Point, Utah/Grand, and One Tower Place) offer commute period first and last-mile connections between the Caltrain Station and local employers in the East of 101 Area. Each shuttle operates at 30- to 60- minute headways during commuting AM and PM peak periods. Shuttle connections are provided on Poletti Way near the newly relocated Caltrans Station, approximately 0.4-mile from the project site. In addition, Commute.org has a Bicycle to Work Rewards Program wherein commuters who live and work in San Mateo County are eligible for the Guaranteed Ride Home program, in which Commute.org will cover the cost of a ride home in case of bad weather or bicycle theft/breakage, and commuters can receive up to $100 for logging bicycle commutes to work in San Mateo County. • The South City Shuttle provides free local transit service in South San Francisco. The shuttle operates in a clockwise and counterclockwise loop every 40 minutes, with the nearest stops near the Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue intersection approximately 0.5-mile from the project site.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Figure 15
Existing and Planned Transit Facilities
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths. Caltrans recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities:
• Class I – Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with cross-flow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths).
• Class II – Bicycle Lanes: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.

May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane.
• Class III – Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane.
• Class IV – Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

The area surrounding the project site has a Class III bicycle network that provides first- and lastmile connectivity to the Caltrain Station to the north and residential uses to the west of Airport Boulevard. Current bicycle facilities in the project vicinity are discussed below (see Figure 16). • Airport Boulevard is designated as a Class III bicycle route, providing shared use with motor vehicle traffic. Airport Boulevard has proposed Class IV bicycle lanes between Miller Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. The proposed bicycle lanes on Airport Boulevard will provide direct access to the project site.
• San Mateo Avenue and South Airport Boulevard have proposed Class II bicycle lanes between Harbor Way and Tanforan Avenue. The proposed bicycle lanes on San Mateo Avenue will provide direct access to the project site.
• Class II bicycle lanes are provided on Gateway Boulevard between East Grand Avenue and South Airport Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard has proposed Class II bicycle lanes between Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue to connect to existing bicycle lanes on both roads. The proposed bicycle lanes on Gateway Boulevard will provide direct access to the project site.
• The San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) is a Class I mixed-use trail along the Oyster Point shoreline and Point San Bruno, and is part of a planned 400-mile regional trail system encircling the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The nearest access point from the project site to the San Francisco Bay Trail is approximately one mile away, and is accessible via shared use bicycle routes.

Bicyclists primarily access the project site via San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and South Airport Boulevard. Challenges to cycling in the area include the lack of a continuous bicycle network, lack of separation from higher speed vehicle traffic, and lack of protected intersections.

Challenges to cycling related to safety, comfort, access, and circulation, create barriers for people who might bike but have access to other forms of mobility, such as a vehicle.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. In the project vicinity, continuous sidewalks exist along both sides of Airport Boulevard, South Airport Boulevard, and San Mateo Avenue.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Figure 16
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
On Produce Avenue, continuous sidewalks exist only on the west side of the street; the entire east side of Produce Avenue borders US 101 and the expected pedestrian demand is very low.

Produce Avenue connects the south leg of the intersection of Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to the southbound US 101 on-ramp at Terminal Court and primarily serves vehicle trips.

At the intersection of Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue, marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are provided on all intersection legs. There is a lack of uniformity in pedestrian facilities between each leg of the intersection, which includes curb cuts, pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian push buttons and actuation, the presence of tactile domes, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance features. Additionally, the standard parallel striped crosswalks are faded and misaligned with the pedestrian through zone. The southern crosswalk is actuated to allow pedestrians to cross without pressing a push button and the pedestrian signal head displays a countdown to inform how much time is left to cross; however, such features do not exist at the other three crossings. Different push buttons and signage exist on signal poles. Tactile domes only exist at the southwest leg of the intersection.

The slip lanes at the northeast, northwest, and southwest corners of the intersection of Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue have wide vehicle turning radii, relatively high speeds, and yield control. Pedestrians coming from downtown South San Francisco on the west side of Airport Boulevard would be required to cross the northwest and northeast slip lanes to access the project site.

Sidewalks on South Airport Boulevard provide pedestrian connectivity between the project site and the nearest existing Commute.org shuttle stop; however, for pedestrians crossing the channelized right turn lane from Produce Avenue onto South Airport Boulevard, there is no crosswalk or curb cuts on either the porkchop island or sidewalk east of the island.

Sidewalks on Airport Boulevard provide continuous pedestrian connectivity between the project site and the nearest SamTrans stop and the Caltrain Station. Future residents and visitors of the project site would have direct access to the Airport Boulevard sidewalks and would not be required to cross the road to access the SamTrans stop or the future Caltrain pedestrian access point near Grand Avenue. Sidewalks are generally in good condition except along the west side of Airport Boulevard before approaching the pedestrian tunnel heading south to the project site. All pedestrians traveling from the project site would be required to travel through the Airport Boulevard railroad underpass tunnel to access the Caltrain Station and downtown South San Francisco. The tunnel currently includes approximately six-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides and limited pedestrian-scaled lighting.

Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency vehicles typically use major streets through the study area when heading to and from an emergency and/or emergency facility. Arterial roadways allow emergency vehicles to travel at higher speeds and provide enough clearance space to permit other traffic to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicle and yield the right-of-way. Emergency vehicle access to the project site is primarily from South Airport Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue. South Airport Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction and Mitchell Avenue has one travel lane in each direction. The project site is located approximately 0.6-mile west of South San Francisco Fire Station 62. Travel time is approximately three minutes from Fire Station 62 to the project site. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Transportation and circulation were discussed in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.3. The General Plan EIR notes that buildout of the General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact related to Level of Service along US 101, I-280, I-380, SR-82, and Bayshore Boulevard.

Even after the implementation of mitigation measures, the General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan would result in a significant residual impact because the Plan would cause a substantial increase in traffic. The following list includes some General Plan policies that are relevant to transportation planning:
• 4.2-G-1 - Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging employment areas such as the East of 101 area. • 4.2-G-2 - Improve connections between different parts of the city. • 4.2-G-3 - Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of--way and the BART rightof-way to establish new streets. • 4.2-G-12 - Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements. • 4.2-G-15 - Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. • 4.2-G-16 - Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
o There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and o The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. • 4.2-G-10 - Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehiclemiles traveled. • 4.3-G-1 - Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation.
• 4.3-G-2 - Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
• 4.3-I-14 - Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the surrounding area and the rail stations -South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station. Components of the program should include:
o Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed.
o Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use;
o Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in the Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; o Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and
o Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. • 4.3-I-16 - Favor Transportation Systems Management programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend the commute hour.

Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.1 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to transportation that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a,c,d. Because Plan Bay Area is a planning document for transportation projects, the Plan Bay Area EIR did not specifically address impacts related to conflicts with a policy addressing the circulation system, impacts related to increasing hazards, or resulting in inadequate emergency access. Impact 2.1-7 did analyze the potential for construction to disrupt ongoing operations of the local transportation system, and concluded that, with implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-7, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to a substantial increase in per capita VMT compared to existing conditions under Impact 2.1-4, Because buildout under the Plan would result in an overall reduction of per-capita VMT, the Plan Bay Area EIR determined that a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.1-3(b) and 2.1-7 apply to the project. Measure 2.1-3(b) has already been implemented.

2.1-3(b) Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies shall be incorporated into individual land use and transportation projects and plans, as part of the planning process. Local agencies shall incorporate strategies identified in the Federal Highway Administration’s publication: Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (August 2012) into the planning process (FHWA 2012). For example, the following strategies may be included to encourage use of transit and non-motorized modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled on the region’s roadways:
• include TDM mitigation requirements for new developments; • incorporate supporting infrastructure for non-motorized modes, such as, bike lanes, secure bike parking, sidewalks, and crosswalks; • provide incentives to use alternative modes and reduce driving, such as, universal transit passes, road and parking pricing;
• implement parking management programs, such as parking cash-out, priority parking for carpools and vanpools;
• develop TDM-specific performance measures to evaluate project-specific and system-wide performance;
• incorporate TDM performance measures in the decision-making process for identifying transportation investments;
• implement data collection programs for TDM to determine the effectiveness of certain strategies and to measure success over time; and • set aside funding for TDM initiatives.

The increase in per capita VMT on facilities experiencing LOS F represents a significant impact compared to existing conditions. To assess whether 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
implementation of these specific mitigation strategies would result in measurable traffic congestion reductions, implementing actions may need to be further refined within the overall parameters of the proposed Plan and matched to local conditions in any subsequent project-level environmental analysis.

2.1-7 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following measure, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include:

Implementing agencies shall require implementation of best practice strategies regarding construction activities on the transportation system and apply recommended applicable mitigation measures as defined by state and federal agencies. Examples of mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
• prepare a transportation construction plan for all phases of construction; • establish construction phasing/staging schedule and sequence that minimizes impacts of a work zone on traffic by using operationally-sensitive phasing and staging throughout the life of the project; • identify arrival/departure times for trucks and construction workers to avoid peak periods of adjacent street traffic and minimize traffic affects; • identify optimal delivery and haul routes to and from the site to minimize impacts to traffic, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists; • identify appropriate detour routes for bicycles and pedestrians in areas affected by construction;
• coordinate with local transit agencies and provide for relocation of bus stops and ensure adequate wayfinding and signage to notify transit users; • preserve emergency vehicle access;
• implement public awareness strategies to educate and reach out to the public, businesses, and the community concerning the project and work zone (e.g., brochures and mailers, press releases/media alerts); • provide a point of contact for residents, employees, property owners, and visitors to obtain construction information, and provide comments and questions;
• provide current and/or real-time information to road users regarding the project work zone (e.g., changeable message sign to notify road users of lane and road closures and work activities, temporary conventional signs to guide motorists through the work zone); and
• encourage construction workers to use transit, carpool, and other sustainable transportation modes when commuting to and from the site.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. Project traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed project was estimated using a combination of existing driveway trip counts from the existing warehouse and the locally-sensitive trip generation methodology known as MXD+. The MXD+ method accounts for built environment factors, including the density and diversity of land uses, design of the pedestrian and bicycle environment, demographics of the site, and distance to transit, to develop more realistic trip generation estimates than traditional traffic engineering methods.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Vehicle trips from the existing warehouse and anticipated trips generated from the proposed project are shown in Table 19. The heavy vehicle counts associated with the existing warehouse were converted to Passenger Car Equivalents in order to provide a clearer comparison to the trips generated by the proposed project. As shown in the table, the project would generate approximately 742 new vehicle trips per day.

Table 19
Project Vehicle Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Size
Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project1 292 units 1,590 25 73 98 76 48 124
Trip Reductions2 -- -421 -7 -19 -26 -19 -12 -31
Existing Buildings3 36.2 ksf -427 -12 -11 -23 -23 -19 -42 Net New Trips 292 units 742 6 43 49 34 17 51
Notes:

1. Based on ITE 10th Edition (Land Use #221 – Multi-family Housing Mid-Rise).

2. Based on MXD+ trip generation methodology which accounts for built environment factors such as density and diversity of land uses, design of the pedestrian and bicycle environment, site demographics, and accessibility of transit, among other factors.

3. Based on 24-hour driveway counts at the existing site on March 31, 2021. Heavy vehicles converted to Passenger Car Equivalents using 2.0 factor.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

The proposed project would provide adequate site access and circulation for pedestrians.

For instance, a paved sidewalk extends from Airport Boulevard across the entire frontage of the building, along the easement road, and several access points would be provided around the building periphery. Access to the building would be provided at three locations along Airport Boulevard including a stairwell to apartment units and the mail room, a stairwell to apartment amenities, and a larger doorway direct to the community room. The sidewalk along the easement road provides access points to the community room, residential café, leasing office/lobby, and the loading/move-in area. Additionally, an entrance is located at the back of the building adjacent to the railroad tracks.

Discontinuous sidewalks and curb cuts exist along the easement road bordering the hotel property but, according to Fehr and Peers, does not represent a project-level hazardous condition.

Bicycle access would be provided to the project site through the shared driveway along Airport Boulevard adjacent to the intersection of Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue. The project would provide 104 long-term protected (Class I) bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the City’s Code requirement for the project. Per the City’s Municipal Code (Section 20.330.008 B.2.a), long-term bicycle parking must be located on the same lot as the use it serves and must be located near an entrance to the facility in parking garages. Long-term bicycle parking for the proposed project would be available on the second floor. The project would also include 31 short term bicycle parking spaces, which meets the City’s requirement. Per the City’s Municipal Code (Section

20.330.008 A.2.a), short-term bicycle parking must be located outside of the public rightof-way and pedestrian walkways and within 50 feet of a main entrance to the building it serves. Consistent with Section 20.330.008, the proposed short-term bike parking would be available along the sidewalk in front of the residential building amenity spaces and main building entrance. Therefore, all proposed bicycle parking would achieve the standards established by the City.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
The proposed project would generate vehicle trips in the vicinity of existing transit services and would generate some new transit trips to existing routes. For example, SamTrans bus routes travel along the project’s frontage on Airport Boulevard. The addition of 74 net new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, or approximately one new vehicle per minute, would not create a disruption to transit service surrounding the project site. Implementation of the proposed project may add net new transit trips to Caltrain and other public transit routes, but ridership would be adequately accommodated through available capacity. The proposed project would not include any features that would disrupt existing or planned transit routes or facilities. The proposed driveways would not cause disruptions to existing or planned transit service or transit stops. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a detrimental impact to existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, or conflict with adopted policies in adopted City plans. Therefore, the impacts would be less-than-significant under Existing Plus Project conditions, and the project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to significant cumulative impacts under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Per Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

Except as provided in Section 15064.3 (b)(2) regarding roadway capacity, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Per Section 15064.3(b)(3), a lead agency may analyze a project’s VMT qualitatively based on the availability of transit, proximity to destinations, etc. As noted throughout this SCEA IS, the project site is located within the vicinity of a major public transit stop.

According to the VMT threshold guidelines adopted by the City, projects located within

0.5-mile of a high-quality transit area are presumed to have less-than-significant VMT impacts unless: the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is less than 0.75; the project would provide more parking than required by City Code; the project would be inconsistent with the applicable Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), as determined by the City; or the project would replace affordable housing units with market-rate units.

The project site is located within 0.5-mile of both the existing and the proposed South San Francisco Caltrain Station and SamTrans bus stops, including Route 130 which operates every 15 minutes on weekdays. The FAR for the proposed building is 4.7; thus, the total FAR is higher than the 0.75 threshold. A total of 308 parking spaces are proposed, which is less than the 394 required by the City Code,81 given the proposed unit types. The applicant has submitted a TDM plan as required by the City to support a reduction in parking spaces below City requirements. The TDM plan will help to encourage non-auto 81 For a multi-unit residential project in a downtown district, the City of South San Francisco requires a minimum of 1 parking space per one-bedroom unit, 1.5 parking spaces per two-bedroom unit up to 1,100 square feet, and 1.5 parking spaces per three or more bedrooms and 1,101 square feet or larger; however, no parking spaces are required for sites that are within a half-mile walking distance of public transit. Based on the preceding, a total of 394 parking spaces would be required by the City code if the project did not meet the exception for proximity to public transit.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
trips and further reduce non-drive alone vehicle trips. The number of vehicle parking spaces provided is therefore compliant with the South San Francisco Municipal Code and is in line with the South San Francisco General Plan policies and goals to promote alternate modes of transportation. Additionally, the project proposes 31 short term bike parking stalls and 104 long term bike parking stalls, whereas the City requires 31 short term bike parking stalls and 73 long term bike parking stalls. The number of bike parking spaces provided is therefore higher than required by the City, which supports General Plan policies and goals.

The Plan Bay Area is the relevant RTP/SCS for South San Francisco. The proposed project would be consistent with the use and intensity that is included in Plan Bay Area and, the project falls within the projected land use development totals for South San Francisco. Finally, the project would not replace affordable housing units with market-rate units. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT.

In addition, the TDM prepared for the proposed project includes several measures that would further reduce VMT. The project’s TDM plan includes infrastructure on-site to support pedestrians and bicyclists, programmatic elements to educate and incentivize residents to commute by carpool, transit, and biking, and contains monitoring and reporting requirements to analyze the program's effectiveness at further reducing VMT and increasing multi-modal trips. The project site will have ride-share zones, a bicycle parking and repair station, a micromobility hub for e-bikes and e-scooters, and Broadband and Wi-Fi throughout the building that is free in communal spaces to support telecommuting. Additionally, the project will contribute to off-site improvements to the pedestrian tunnel on Airport Boulevard leading to Caltrain. The plan outlines programmatic elements including training leasing staff to share materials with future tenants, marketing materials outlining transportation options in the area, and resources that provide incentives for carpooling, biking, and transit for residents and employees. The TDM Plan includes strategies that result in 285 peak-hour C/CAG trip credits, which exceeds the estimated number of peak-hour trips calculated for the project. Furthermore, the program will monitor and report on residents’ commute patterns through an annual survey and summary report. The proposed TDM satisfies the requirements of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b).

Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. Safety analysis pursuant to CEQA typically considers whether a proposed project could extend intersection queue lengths such that the backup could interfere with through traffic, thus, creating roadway safety concerns. Two freeway off-ramps were selected for queuing analysis to assess conditions where the addition of project trips may result in hazards to road users. The study locations are listed below.

1. US 101/Produce Avenue (southbound off-ramp); and

2. US 101/South Airport Boulevard (northbound off-ramp).

Table 20 presents weekday PM peak hour vehicle queues at the two US 101 off-ramp study locations for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions, and Table 21 presents weekday PM peak hour vehicle queues for Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The PM peak hour was selected as the analysis period because the project is a residential project and the majority of project-added off-ramp trips will be in the PM. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Therefore, the off-ramps queuing analysis during the PM peak hour is expected to encompass all potential impacts.

Table 20
Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues
Approach
Lanes
Storage
Distance
(ft)
Existing Existing Plus Project
Volume
Queue
Length (ft) Volume
Queue
Length (ft)

1. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue (PM Peak) Left 100 40 20 40 20
Right 620 361 50 367 50

2. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard (PM Peak) Left/Through 740 381 230 389 240
Right 740 271 40 271 40
Notes: Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

Table 21
Cumulative Weekday PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues
Approach
Lanes
Storage
Distance
(ft)
Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project
Volume
Queue
Length (ft) Volume
Queue
Length (ft)

1. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue (PM Peak) Left 100 40 20 40 20
Right 620 373 50 379 50

2. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard (PM Peak) Left/Through 740 455 300 488 345
Right 740 295 40 295 40
Notes: Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

The project would not extend or contribute to queues longer than storage distances at either off-ramp locations. Therefore, the project would not result in a hazardous condition at this location. For the cumulative scenario, the project would not extend or contribute to queues longer than storage distances at either off-ramp locations. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution of traffic in the cumulative scenario would not result in a hazardous condition at this location.

The proposed project does not include any new geometric design features that cause hazards. Implementation of the shared driveway on Airport Boulevard would not change the existing roadway geometry. Sight distance at the proposed driveways is not expected to change from what is available under existing conditions, and any future vegetation located within the sight triangles at the driveway would be maintained so as not to restrict drivers’ sight distance when exiting the driveway.

The project would generate new pedestrian and bicycle trips, particularly residents walking to downtown South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. Most residents are likely to walk along the east sidewalk on Airport Boulevard when traveling 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
between the project site and the Caltrain Station; however, some residents may also travel along the west sidewalk, particularly when making trips to Downtown South San Francisco. Residents walking along the west sidewalk and bicyclists heading south to the project site will travel via Airport Boulevard through existing slip right-turn lanes at the northwest and northeast corners of the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection, which may exacerbate conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists given the wide turning radii, relatively high speeds, yield-control, and lack of separation of bicycle movements. However, based on assumed pedestrian and bicycle destinations and routing decisions (i.e., majority of downtown bound ped/bike trips would travel along east side of Airport Boulevard and cross at Baden Avenue or Grand Avenue, as the most direct route of travel), approximately two project trips are expected to use the north crosswalk during the peak hour. Because the project is only anticipated to generate approximately two trips during the peak hour, the project contribution would not represent a substantial increase to hazards at that location.

Considering the proposed project is expected to increase pedestrian and bicycle trips to the shared driveway and easement road, the project could increase risk to pedestrians and bicyclists. The existing driveway and easement road were designed to accommodate frequent large trucks for warehouse land use, and the current design is not compatible with the proposed residential use. The current design promotes vehicles turning at relatively high speeds across pedestrian zones and longer exposure time for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project-added pedestrian and bicycle trips at the existing driveway represents a potentially significant impact related to hazards and mitigation is required.

Redesigning the driveway and easement road to size them to an appropriate design for vehicles and for the proposed residential uses would reduce vehicle speeds, thereby (1) lowering the severity of collisions and (2) widening drivers’ vision cone of pedestrians and bicyclists to help prevent collisions from occurring. Driveway turning templates are included as Appendix E to the Transportation Impact Analysis. Turning templates show a passenger vehicle turning into the existing 70-foot-wide driveway at 20 miles per hour.

With a narrower driveway, turning speeds are reduced to 5 miles per hour and provide a safer environment for pedestrians and bicycles. The turning templates also show that large delivery trucks are able to turn into the site with a narrower driveway. Implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure XIII-1 would encourage lower vehicle speeds on-site and provide shorter crossing distances for pedestrians, lowering the risk and severity of collisions.

Therefore, without mitigation, the project could result in a potentially significant impact related to hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. d. Vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would represent a very small percentage of overall daily and peak hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the study area. As noted previously, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 49 AM peak hour and 74 PM peak hour net new vehicle trips, which are distributed to study intersections. Projectgenerated vehicle trips represent approximately one percent of entering volumes at study intersections during the peak hours. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include any features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities. Fire and police vehicles would continue to have access to facilities around the project area.

Upon the commencement of construction activities, emergency vehicles would have full access to the project site.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Therefore, the project is expected not to result in inadequate emergency access, and the Project’s impacts related to resulting in inadequate emergency access would be lessthan-significant under Existing Plus Project conditions and less than cumulatively considerable under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-thansignificant level (see question ‘c’).

XIII-1 Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the project driveway and easement road shall be resized to an appropriate design vehicle (WB-40 trailer truck or smaller) with the intent of reducing the driveway and easement road widths, in consultation with City staff and City resources such as the City’s Complete Street Ordinance and the Downtown Plan.

Findings
A central goal of the Plan Bay Area is the combination of transportation and land use planning to decrease reliance on single-passenger vehicles, and increase the use of alternative means of transportation such as buses, trains, bicycles and walking. Plan Bay Area concluded that increased densification of existing urban areas would help support these goals by placing more people in proximity to existing mass transportation infrastructure and in closer proximity to employment centers, which would reduce VMT. The project site is located in a TPA and, as such, the project’s location would allow residents to use alternate means of transportation, which would decrease the use of single passenger vehicles. Increasing ridership of existing alternative transit options would support such systems while also reducing the amount of single-passenger vehicle traffic that would otherwise be created by area population growth related to the project.

Additionally, project-specific Mitigation Measure XIII-1 would ensure that the project applicant resizes the driveway and easement road to reduce potential hazards. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b), which requires preparation and implementation of a TDM Plan, has already been implemented. Because the project is taking advantage of the CEQA streamlining provisions of SB 375, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-7 would also be required as part of the proposed project, even though the mitigation measure is not necessary to reduce an identified impact.

Given the above discussion and the project’s consistency with the Plan Bay Area, with implementation of the aforementioned Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures and projectspecific Mitigation Measure, the proposed project would not be expected to result in any additional environmental effects related to Transportation.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
XIV. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).
   
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
   
Environmental Setting
The San Francisco Bay Area has a moderate, Mediterranean type climate and access to abundant natural resources, making the region suitable for human settlement thousands of years ago. In particular, the Native American Ohlone people are known to have lived within San Mateo County. As noted in the General Plan EIR, evidence of Native American residents, such as shell mounds and middens, have been found throughout the City.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts to tribal cultural resources are discussed in Chapter 4.14 of the General Plan EIR. a,b. Impact 4.14-b includes a discussion regarding how development of the General Plan has the potential to disrupt property of cultural significance. As noted therein, known tribal cultural resources associated with Ohlone settlement are scattered throughout the City.

One such resource is the Native American archaeological village within the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area, which contains Native American household items and human burials. The following policies have been included in the General Plan that address the protection of tribal cultural resources:
• 7.5-I-4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources.
• 7.5-I-5: In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered.

The General Plan EIR concludes that, with implementation of the measures listed within the General Plan, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be avoided and addressed appropriately, and impacts would be less than significant. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
The Plan Bay Area EIR discusses tribal cultural resources in Chapter 2.11 a,b. Impacts to tribal cultural resources are discussed under Impact 2.11-5. The Plan Bay Area EIR notes that, while identified tribal cultural resources do not exist within the planning area, the potential exists that previously unknown tribal cultural resources could be identified during ground-disturbing activities, and a potentially significant impact could occur. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 (see below) requires compliance with State tribal consultation regulations and protection of tribal cultural resources should they be found during construction. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures

2.11-5, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the abovereferenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the project’s impact related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

In addition, as discussed in further detail below, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-5 and State law would be required by the City of South San Francisco to ensure that the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant impact to tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 would apply to the proposed project:

2.11-5 If the implementing agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process required under PRC Section 21080.3.2, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following measures where feasible and necessary to address site-specific impacts to avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts:
• Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or to undertake a project, the lead agency must provide formal notification, in writing, to the tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction. If it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, the tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification. The lead agency must begin the consultation process with the tribes that have requested consultation within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either: 1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
• Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any TCR (PRC Section 21084.3 (a)). If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, new provisions in the PRC describe mitigation measures that, if determined by the lead agency to be feasible, may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts (PRC Section 21084.3 (b)). Examples include:

A. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.

B. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
 Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource
 Protecting the traditional use of the resource
 Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

C. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.

D. Protecting the resource.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. The project site has been previously developed and, therefore, subject to extensive ground disturbance. As a result, the likelihood that previously unknown tribal cultural resources would be found during redevelopment is low. Based on the lack of identified tribal cultural resources at the site and the extensive disturbance that has occurred within the project vicinity, known tribal cultural resources do not exist within the site. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 requires the performance of professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the identification of tribal cultural resources, and is relevant to the proposed project. In addition, as noted in Section III, Cultural Resources, the project would comply with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2, California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052, and California PRC Section 5097.

Pursuant to AB 52, the City distributed notices of the proposed project to the appropriate tribes. No tribe requested consultation within the 30-day response period.

While the possibility exists that construction of the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource if previously unknown tribal cultural resources are uncovered during grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the required implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-5 and State law would ensure that a less-than-significant impact to tribal cultural resources would occur.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
Known tribal cultural resources do not exist on the project site. However, if previously unknown tribal cultural resources are identified during ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-5, and compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California PRC Section 5097, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. As such, the proposed project would not be considered to result in any additional environmental impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
   
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
   
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
   
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
   
Environmental Setting
The project site currently contains a commercial warehouse building and associated paved areas, and is located within a developed area of South San Francisco. As such, utilities connections and service systems already serve the project site. Water service for the project site is provided by Cal Water, and wastewater treatment service is provided by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. Solid waste collection is provided to the project site by South San Francisco Scavenger Company, natural gas is provided by PG&E, electricity is provided by PG&E and/or PCE, and underground fiber-optic communication and cable provider lines exist in the project vicinity.

Water
Potable water supplies in the City of South San Francisco, including the project site, are provided by California Water Service (Cal Water). Cal Water does not have rights to any surface water to use as a supply for the South San Francisco District. However, Cal Water contracts with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC’s) City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), and the SFPUC delivers Cal Water with surface water.82 The water provided to customers in South San Francisco comes primarily from purchased water from the SFPUC, and approximately 20 percent of the water supply is from groundwater. In general, 85 percent of the supply comes from the Tuolumne River through Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the remaining 15 percent comes from the local watersheds through the San Antonio, Calaveras, Crystal Springs, Pilarcitos and San Andreas Reservoirs. Based on the UWMP, the South San Francisco District has a sufficient water supply during years under normal conditions. However, during one-year or multi-year droughts, shortfalls in water supply are projected. Under such 82 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan.83 Water mains currently exist in the north side of Airport Boulevard.

Wastewater Treatment
The City of South San Francisco maintains all of its sewer system facilities and infrastructure in accordance with the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) per Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 2006-003 DWQ, adopted by the SWRCB, and Order No. WQ 2013- 0058-EXEC for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements and Sanitary Systems. All wastewater from the City is conveyed to South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (SSFWQCP), which provides secondary wastewater treatment for the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. The SSFWQCP has design capacity to treat 13 MGD average daily flow. The average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 MGD.84 An existing six-inch sewer main is located in Airport Boulevard.

Stormwater Drainage
The City of South San Francisco operates and maintains the stormwater drainage system, which currently consists of approximately 13,220 linear feet of stormwater drainage pipes, 88 stormwater drainage inlets, and 11 stormwater manholes. The stormwater system contains various drainage networks that discharge directly to San Francisco Bay through at least 16 outfalls and one channel. The City operates under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, and requires implementation of BMPs and LID design.85 A 12-inch force main extends within Airport Boulevard, and a stormwater catch basin and line exist in the shared driveway east of the project site.

Solid Waste
Solid waste and recycling services are provided to the project site by South San Francisco Scavenger Company. Collected waste is processed at the Blue Line Transfer Facility, located at 500 East Jamie Court. The Blue Line Transfer Facility has a maximum permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day.86 Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Landfill near Half Moon Bay, owned by Browning-Ferris Industries. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of 3,598 tons per day, with a remaining capacity of approximately 22.2 million cubic yards. The closure date is planned for 2034.

Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity is provided to the project site by PCE/PG&E, and natural gas service is provided by PG&E. Electricity and natural gas infrastructure currently exists in the immediate project vicinity.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of development under the General Plan on electricity, natural gas and telecommunications in Chapter 4.15. Chapter 4.6 of the General Plan EIR evaluates impacts related to water, wastewater, and solid waste facilities. 83 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2021. 84 Ibid. 85 City of South San Francisco. 2017 OSPS Update Municipal Services Assessment Draft Report. November 2017. 86 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail: Blue Line MRF and TS (41-AA-0185). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/41-AA-0185. Accessed July 17, 2020.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
a. Under Impact 4.15-a, the General Plan EIR noted that utilities would be expanded to new developments as they occur. Because existing infrastructure already exists in most of the City, and expansion of infrastructure to vacant lots would be feasible, a less-than-significant impact would occur. In addition, the General Plan EIR concluded that the additional demand for utility services that would occur from buildout of the General Plan would be adequately met by the utility providers. Impact 4.15-b determined that PG&E anticipates being able to adequately meet energy demands to new developments built under the General Plan, and the impact would be less than significant.
b. The General Plan EIR discusses impacts related to demand for water and available water supply under Impact 4.6-a, and notes that new development and intensification of development under the General Plan would result in increased demand for water. The General Plan EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan policies below would ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
• 5.3-I-1 Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County Water District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth.
• 5.3-I-2 Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. • 5.3-I-3 Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing water service to new development in South San Francisco.
• 5.3-G-1 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply system to meet projected needs.
• 5.3-G-2 Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed development.
• 5.3-G-3 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing water service to new development.
c. Under Impact 4.6-e, the General Plan EIR notes that development under the General Plan would result in an increase in wastewater generation outside of the capacity of the current wastewater treatment plant. However, the treatment plant has planned expansion, and the General Plan includes policies, listed below, to ensure that demand for wastewater treatment does not exceed capacity. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. • 5.3-G-4 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater system to meet projected needs.
• 5.3-I-4 Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth.
• 5.3-I-6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should remain affordable.
• 5.3-G-5 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development.
d,e. Impact 4.6-f of the General Plan EIR discussed impacts related to solid waste generation and disposal. According to the General Plan EIR, the local landfill will have adequate capacity to handle solid waste generated by the City at full buildout of the General Plan. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
In addition, General Plan policies 8.3-G-1 and 8.3-I-1 both encourage a reduction in solid waste generation and increase in recycling. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.12 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to water resources, utilities, and service systems that may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to construction of new or expanded water and wastewater treatment facilities under Impact 2.12-4. Potential impacts on water and wastewater treatment facilities capacity would occur primarily from projected development under the changes in land use assumed by the proposed Plan.

The Plan Bay Area EIR includes Mitigation Measure 2.12-4, requiring projects to upgrade infrastructure as needed to ensure adequate capacity exists to serve the project and other demand. The Plan Bay Area EIR also analyzed the potential impact related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities under Impact 2.12-3. Development outside of urbanized areas could require the construction of new stormwater drainage systems, and this impact would be potentially significant. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-3 and 2.12-4, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review.

However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the individual project’s impacts related to water, sewer, and drainage improvements would be less than significant.

As will be demonstrated below, project-specific impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would be less than significant. b. The Plan Bay Area EIR Impact 2.12-1 analyzed the potential impact related to insufficient water supplies from existing entitlements and resources to serve expected development.

Development under the Plan would increase demand for water, and could result in insufficient water supplies. Plan Bay Area EIR includes Mitigation Measure 2.12-1, requiring implementing agencies and/or project sponsors to require that land use and transportation project sponsors coordinate with water suppliers to ensure adequate water supplies exist or comply with project-level CEQA review and incorporate on-site water conservation strategies, water budgeting, and incorporation of recycled water for nonpotable use. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12-1, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the individual project’s impact related to water supplies would be less than significant.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the water provider for the proposed project would have sufficient water supply to serve future demand during normal years.

Consequently, project-specific impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR Impact 2.12-2 analyzed the potential impact related to inadequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve new development. Development under the Plan would increase demand for water treatment, and could result in exceedance of the wastewater treatment capacity. Implementation of Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.12- 2 would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. d,e. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to insufficient landfill capacity under Impact 2.12-5. The solid waste generated by both land use and transportation projects could reduce the capacity of existing landfills, leading to earlier closure dates than currently anticipated and a need for increased landfill capacity. Plan Bay Area EIR includes Mitigation Measure 2.12-5, requiring implementing agencies and/or project sponsors to apply landfill diversion strategies including re-using building materials, maintaining structures where applicable, developing construction waste management plans, and using guidance from the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA).

Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.12-5, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the individual project’s impact related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.

In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the increase in solid waste generation from the proposed project would not be considered significant, and the landfill would have sufficient capacity. Therefore, project-specific impacts related to the generation of solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(b) and (c) and 2.12-3(b) and (c) only apply to transportation projects and, therefore, would not apply to the proposed project. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a), 2.12-4, and 2.12-5 would apply to the proposed project:

2.12-1(a) Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• For projects that could increase demand for water, project sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant water service provider to ensure that the provider has adequate supplies and infrastructure to accommodate the increase in demand. If the current infrastructure servicing the project site is 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
found to be inadequate, infrastructure improvements shall be identified in each project’s CEQA documentation.
• Implement water conservation measures which result in reduced demand for potable water. This could include reducing the use of potable water for landscape irrigation (such as through drought-tolerant plantings, waterefficient irrigation systems, the capture and use of rainwater) and the use of water-conserving fixtures (such as dual-flush toilets, waterless urinals, reduced flow faucets).
• Coordinate with the water provider to identify an appropriate water consumption budget for the size and type of project, and designing and operating the project accordingly.
• For projects located in an area with existing reclaimed water conveyance infrastructure and excess reclaimed water capacity, use reclaimed water for non-potable uses, especially landscape irrigation. For projects in a location planned for future reclaimed water service, projects should install dual plumbing systems in anticipation of future use. Large developments could treat wastewater onsite to tertiary standards and use it for nonpotable uses onsite.

2.12-2 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement mitigations measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA review of individual future projects, implementing agencies and project sponsors shall determine whether sufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists for a proposed project.

These CEQA determinations must ensure that the proposed development can be served by its existing or planned treatment capacity. If adequate capacity does not exist, project sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant service provider to ensure that adequate public services and utilities could accommodate the increased demand, and if not, infrastructure improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant public service provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new facilities. • Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall also require compliance with Mitigation Measure 2.12-1(a), and MTC shall require implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(b), and/or 2.12-1(c) listed under Impact 2.12-1, as feasible based on project- and site-specific considerations to reduce water usage and, subsequently, wastewater flows.

2.12-3(a) Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project-and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA review of individual future projects, implementing agencies and project sponsors shall determine whether sufficient stormwater drainage facilities exist for a proposed project. These CEQA determinations must ensure that the proposed development can be 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

May 2022
served by its existing or planned drainage capacity. If adequate stormwater drainage facilities do not exist, project sponsors shall coordinate with the appropriate utility and service provider to ensure that adequate facilities could accommodate the increased demand, and if not, infrastructure and facility improvements shall be identified in each project’s CEQA determination. The relevant public service provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new facilities.
• For projects of greater than 1 acre in size, reduce stormwater runoff caused by construction by implementing stormwater control best practices, based on those required for a SWPPP.
• Model and implement a stormwater management plan or site design that prevents the post-development peak discharge rate and quantity from exceeding predevelopment rates.

2.12-4 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• For projects that could increase demand on water and wastewater treatment facilities, project sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant service provider to ensure that the existing public services and utilities could accommodate the increase in demand. If the current infrastructure servicing the project site is found to be inadequate, infrastructure improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant public service provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new facilities. Further, Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a), 2.12-1(b), 2.12-1(c), and 2.12-2 would reduce water demand and wastewater generation, and subsequently reduce the need for new or expanded water and wastewater treatment facilities. Mitigation Measures 2.12-3(a), 2.12-3(b), and 2.12-3(c) would also mitigate the impact of additional stormwater runoff from land use and transportation projects on existing wastewater treatment facilities.

2.12-5 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• providing an easily accessible area that is dedicated to the collection and storage of non-hazardous recycling materials
• maintaining or re-using existing building structures and materials during building renovations and redevelopment
• using salvaged, refurbished or reused materials, to help divert such items from landfills
• for transportation projects, diverting construction waste from landfills, where feasible, through means such as:
o the submission and implementation of a construction waste management plan that identifies materials to be diverted from disposal
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study