May 2022
o establishing diversion targets, possibly with different targets for different types and scales of development
o helping developments share information on available materials with one another, to aid in the transfer and use of salvaged materials; and
• applying the specifications developed by the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) to assist contractors and developers in diverting materials from construction and demolition projects, where feasible (RMC 2006).
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The project site is currently developed, and located in an urban area. Therefore, water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, and natural gas infrastructure already exist to serve the proposed project.
As part of the proposed project, a new four-inch domestic water line and new six-inch fire service line would connect to the existing six-inch water main in Airport Boulevard. The project is anticipated to generate a water demand of approximately 720 gpm peak demand for domestic use and approximately 1,304 gpm for fire sprinkler service. Fire hydrants around the site would be required to provide approximately 2,875 gpm, as the proposed building would include an approved automatic fire protection system according to the California Fire Code and City of South San Francisco Fire requirements. Based on a Fire Flow Test conducted by Cal Water, the available fire flow at 20 psi is 6,335 gpm, which is sufficient to accommodate the 2,875 gpm requirement.87 In addition, Cal Water has submitted a Will Serve Letter, which indicates that Cal Water will provide water service to the proposed project.88
With regard to sanitary sewer service, the proposed project would include a new six-inch sewer lateral that would connect to the existing six-inch sewer main in Airport Boulevard.
Following construction of the proposed project, the sewer flow directed to the main in Airport Boulevard from the project site is assumed to generate a Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow (MDDWF) of approximately 0.125 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow (MDWWF) of approximately 0.580 cfs. As compared to pre-project flows, the MDDWF would increase by approximately 512.5 percent, and the MDWWF would increase by approximately 513.5 percent. Based on a Sewer Capacity Memo prepared by BKF Engineers, the existing sewer main has sufficient capacity to accommodate MDDFW, but not MDWWF.
89 Accordingly, as noted in the Project
Description of this document, prior to construction of the proposed project, 230 lineal feet of sewer pipeline within Airport Boulevard would be upsized from six inches to eight inches in order to accommodate increased flows generated by the proposed project. The proposed upsizing would be sufficient to accommodate both the MDDWF and MDWWF.
Implementation of the improvement by the project applicant would be ensured by the City as a project condition of approval.
The construction activities associated with upsizing the sewer line would not result in any substantial environmental effects, as demonstrated by discussion throughout this SCEA. 87 BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Water Memo. September 3, 2021. 88 California Water Service. Will Serve Letter Tract or Parcel Map No: 015-126-010, 40 Airport Blvd, South San Francisco. September 2, 2021. 89 BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Sanitary Sewer Capacity. June 18, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
A preliminary Stormwater Plan has been prepared for the proposed project. The project site would be divided into eight DMAs and associated treatment measures. Per the preliminary Stormwater Plan prepared for the proposed project, all proposed stormwater treatment measures would be sized to adequately handle all runoff from the associated DMAs. All stormwater would be treated on-site prior to discharge into the City’s storm drain system.
Electricity and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, or other utility infrastructure would not be required.
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(b) and (c) and 2.12-3(b) and (c) only apply to transportation projects and, therefore, would not apply to the proposed project. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a), 2.12-4, and 2.12-5 apply to the project. Considering the project would have access to adequate infrastructure, the intent of the measures has already been fulfilled.
Based on the above, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. b. Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP projects future water demand based on population, housing, and employment projections developed by ABAG, rather than General Plan land use designations. Specifically, the 2020 UWMP references the Plan Bay Area 2040 regional projections. As evidenced by its consistency with the general projections included in the Plan Bay Area, the proposed project represents multi-family growth that is anticipated regionally. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the multi-family growth associated with the proposed project is included in the anticipated growth of multi-family. According to the 2020 UWMP, Cal Water anticipates having sufficient water supply through 2045 during normal conditions, but foresees shortfalls following one-year or multi-year droughts, directly because of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment implementation. However, numerous uncertainties remain in the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. The water supply projections presented herein likely represent a worst-case scenario in which the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented without the SFPUC and the SWRCB reaching a Voluntary Agreement. SFPUC also provided water supply reliability projections without the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, which likely represents a highly optimistic water supply reliability outcome. These projections indicated that without the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment SFPUC would be able to supply 100 percent of projected Regional Water System (RWS) demands in all year types through 2045, except for the fourth and fifth consecutive dry year in 2045, during which 90 percent of projected RWS demands (85 percent of the Wholesale demands) would be met. The large disparity in projected water supply reliability between the two scenarios demonstrate the current level of uncertainty.
Nonetheless, Cal Water has developed strategies and actions to address the projected dry year supply shortfalls, as well as a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), which includes mandatory restrictions in water use during dry years. Therefore, with implementation of the planned water loss management measures and ongoing compliance with the WSCP, Cal Water would have sufficient water supply to serve future 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
demand during dry years. Based on the above, the project would result in a less-thansignificant impact related to water supply. c. The SSFWQCP has the capacity to treat 13 MGD average daily flow, and, according to the SSFWQCP’s website, the average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 MGD.90 Based on the wastewater generation rates available in the 2017 Municipal Services Assessment, multi-family residential units produce an average of 120 gallons per day per bedroom. Considering the proposed project would include 598 bedrooms, the project would generate approximately 71,760 gallons per day, or 0.072 MGD of wastewater. The SSFWQCP is operating below capacity and can treat an additional 4 MGD, and the proposed project would generate approximately 0.072 MGD of wastewater. Thus, the SSFWQCP has sufficient capacity to treat the wastewater flows generated by the proposed project.
With regard to wastewater conveyance, as part of the project, 230 lineal feet of sewer pipeline within Airport Boulevard would be upsized from six inches to eight inches in order to accommodate increased sanitary sewer flows generated by the proposed project. The proposed upsizing would be sufficient to accommodate both the MDDWF and MDWWF.
Implementation of the improvement by the project applicant would be ensured by the City as a project condition of approval.
As such, the existing wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, and the impact would be less than significant. d,e. The proposed project would likely generate an increased amount of solid waste compared to what is currently generated on-site. Based on the average 2018 citywide solid waste disposal rate of 3.8 pounds per day per resident, the solid waste generation that could be expected from the proposed project would be approximately 3,328.8 pounds per day (876 residents X 3.8 pounds per day), or 1.7 tons per day. Considering the Ox Mountain landfill has a permitted throughput of 3,598 tons per day, the waste generated from the project would represent 0.04 percent of the daily throughput capacity. Such an increase is not considered significant, and the landfill would have sufficient capacity. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all relevant City regulations regarding solid waste management included in Chapter 8.16 of the City’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that the waste generated on the project site would be served by an adequate waste collection service.
Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Accordingly, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
90 City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department. Water Quality Control Plant. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant. Accessed January 11, 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
Findings
As discussed above, sufficient capacity exists in the water, wastewater, and solid waste utilities to accommodate the project without the need for constructing new or physically expanded facilities. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a), 2.12-2, 2.12-3(a), 2.12-4, and 2.12- 5 would apply to the proposed project. Considering the project would have access to adequate infrastructure, the intent of the measures has already been fulfilled. New utility improvements and connections would occur within existing rights-of-way, and the project would not be considered to result in any additional environmental impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
XVI. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco is not susceptible to particularly high wildfire risk, likely due to the developed and urban nature of the region.91 Pursuant to Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code, the City of South San Francisco has adopted the California Fire Code (2019 Edition). Therefore, all developments throughout the City must include standard fire prevention features, such as sprinkler systems, which would help prevent potential damage due to wildfire.
Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Impacts associated with wildland fires are discussed under Impact 8.4-b of the General Plan EIR. a-d. The General Plan EIR identifies eight fire management units to categorize the need for fire suppression and regular vegetation maintenance. Under General Plan Policy 8.4-I-1, the City shall institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards to the maximum extent feasible. The General Plan EIR concludes that with implementation of the policies within the General Plan, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.
Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Potential impacts related to wildfire risk are discussed under Impact 2.13-8 of the Plan Bay Area EIR.
a-d. Existing state and local regulations, such as the California Fire Code, exist to ensure that hazards related to wildfire would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. As such, 91 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
land use development and transportation projects implemented under the Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact related to wildfire.
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
None.
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a-d. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.92 In addition, the project site is located within an urbanized area of the City and is bordered by existing development on all sides. The developed nature of the area surrounding the project site precludes the spread of wildfire to the site. Furthermore, while not located in an area of high wildfire risk, the proposed project would include fire sprinklers, as required by State law. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
The project site is not located within an area known to be subject to substantial risk of wildfire. In addition, the project is located within an urban area, within the jurisdiction of the local fire department, and would include all applicable fire safety provisions to reduce hazards associated with potential wildfire. Because the project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan, exacerbate wildfire risk, or expose people or structures to significant risks related to fire, the proposed project would not be considered to result in any additional environmental impacts related to Wildfire.
92 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. As discussed in Section II, Biological Resources, of this SCEA IS, while the potential exists for nesting and migratory birds protected by the MBTA to occur on-site, Mitigation Measures II-1 and II-2 would ensure that impacts to special-status species would be lessthan-significant. The project site is currently developed and has been previously disturbed, and does not contain any known historic or prehistoric resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have the potential to result in impacts related to historic or prehistoric resources. Nevertheless, the implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-2 and 2.11-5 would ensure that in the event that historic or prehistoric resources are discovered within the project site during construction activities, such resources are protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
Considering the above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with the following: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b, c. The Plan Bay Area was designed to encourage development of the region in a manner that would promote more sustainable community design and reduce regional GHG emissions. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area, the project would contribute to the cumulative environmental goals of the Plan Bay Area.
Additionally, the proposed project was analyzed throughout this SCEA IS for additional environmental impacts that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts or result in adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR and project-specific measures from this SCEA IS would reduce all impacts to less-thansignificant levels, and ensure that the proposed project would not result in cumulative environmental impacts. Because the project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
and would not result in any additional environmental impacts, the project would not be expected to result in a considerable cumulative contribution to impacts on the environment or impacts on human beings. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures discussed throughout this document the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
As discussed throughout this document, the proposed project would involve the demolition of the existing warehouse building and the construction of a new multi-family residential structure in central South San Francisco. Infill redevelopment of this nature inherently reduces many potential impacts commonly associated with development. For example, because the site has already been developed with structures and impervious surfaces, the site provides little habitat value. The increase in density that would result from implementation of the proposed project in close proximity to high quality commuter rail service also encourages the use of non-vehicular modes of transportation, thus reducing VMT and GHG emissions. This SCEA finds that, the proposed project would not result in any significant and unmitigable environmental impacts. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
H. SOURCES
All the technical reports and modeling results prepared for the project analysis are available upon request from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. The following documents are referenced informational sources used for preparation of this SCEA IS:
1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.
2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update: Proposed Thresholds of Significance. December 7, 2009.
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqaguidelines. Accessed April 25, 2022.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f 987b1071715daa65. Accessed May 2021.
6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Health Places Interactive Map.
Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=51c2d0bc59244013 ad9d52b8c35cbf66. Accessed May 2021.
7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. May 2016.
8. BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Water Memo. September 3, 2021.
9. BKF Engineers. 40 Airport – Sanitary Sewer Capacity. June 18, 2021.
10. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005.
11. California Air Resources Board. 2002-07-29 Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. June 3, 2015. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm. Accessed July 2020.
12. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
13. California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning:
State of California, County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle. June 15, 2009.
14. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
15. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail: Blue Line MRF and TS (41-AA-0185). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/41-AA-0185. Accessed July 17, 2020.
16. California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.
November 2018.
17. California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2021.
18. Castillo, Francisco J, Senior Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management. June 28, 2021.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
19. City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department. Water Quality Control Plant.
Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant.
Accessed January 11, 2022.
20. City of South San Francisco. Community Choice Energy. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/city-manager/sustainability/community-choiceenergy#:~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20has%20joined ,instead%20of%20going %20through%20PG%26E.. Accessed June 10, 2020.
21. City of South San Francisco. Historic Preservation. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planningdivision/historic-preservation. Accessed April 2021.
22. City of South San Francisco. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. July 22, 2015.
23. City of South San Francisco. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan: Preferred Alternative.
October 2020. Available at: https://shapessf.com/preferredalternative/. Accessed January 4, 2022.
24. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Housing Element 2015-2023. April 2015.
25. City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update: Parks + Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. November 2019.
26. City/County Association of Government of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management Project 2019. April 9, 2019.
27. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November 2012.
28. County of San Mateo. County of San Mateo Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment.
Final Report, Published March 2018.
29. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTES E&site_type=CSITES. Accessed April, 2020.
30. Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/.
Accessed July 16, 2020.
31. Education Data Partnership. South San Francisco Unified. Available at: http://www.eddata.org/district/San-Mateo/South-San-Francisco-Unified. Accessed July 16, 2020.
32. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0043F.
April 5, 2019.
33. Fehr and Peers. 40 Airport Blvd Transportation Impact Analysis. April 2022.
34. Flores, Areana, Environmental Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Personal communication [phone] with Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. April 5, 2021.
35. Flores, Areana, Environmental Planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Personal communication [phone] with Jacob Byrne, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. September 17, 2019.
36. GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018.
37. Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. May 12, 2021.
38. Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. January 12, 2022.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study
May 2022
39. M.S. Zuraimi and Zhongchao Tan. Impact of residential building regulations on reducing indoor exposures to outdoor PM2.5 in Toronto. March 14, 2015.
40. Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017.
41. Patricia Holroyd, Ph.D., Senior Museum Scientist at UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology. Personal Communication [email] with Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician at Raney Planning & Management, Inc. March 18, 2021.
42. Regional Water System. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July 2012.
43. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. April 2021.
44. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, Version 1.0. January 2020.
45. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2. January 4, 2013.
46. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management Requirements: Information for Developers, Builders and Project Applicants.
July 2016.
47. South San Francisco Historic Preservation Program. South San Francisco Historic Sites.
Available at: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1800. Accessed July 10, 2020.
48. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2020 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. April 2021.
49. South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999.
50. Szeto, Lezlie Kimura, Manager, Sustainable Transportation & Communities Division, California Air Resources Board. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management. February 7, 2022.
51. Traverso Tree Service, Inc. Arborist Report for 40 Airport Blvd, South San Francisco.
March 25, 2021.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ): What is a MERV rating? Available at: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating-1. Accessed May 2021.
53. Weather Spark. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in South San Francisco California, United States. Available at: https://weatherspark.com/y/568/Average-Weatherin-South-San-Francisco-California-United-States-Year-Round. Accessed January 4, 2022.
54. W.J. Fisk and W. R. Chan. Effectiveness and cost of reducing particle-related mortality with particle filtration. February 1, 2017.
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND GHG MODELING RESULTS
APPENDIX B
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
APPENDIX C
ARBORIST REPORT
APPENDIX D
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX E
CAP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
APPENDIX F
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX G
TECHNICAL NOISE STUDY
APPENDIX H
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX I
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PLAN