Exhibit A1_40 Airport Blvd - SCEA-IS_FINAL — South San Francisco City Council, July 27, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

1 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Responses to Public Comments
The Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study (SCEA IS) for the 40 Airport Blvd Project was circulated for public review from May 2 to May 31, 2022. A total of three comment letters were received during the comment period, two of which were submitted by public agencies. Responses to each of the comment letters are provided below. It should be noted that the CEQA Guidelines do not require the City to prepare official responses to public comments received on the SCEA IS; the following responses are provided for informational purposes only.

Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife – May 17, 2022 The letter provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) indicates that CDFW Headquarters does not need to receive CEQA notices, and specifically states that the letter is not intended to be a comment letter on any individual project.

Department of Toxic Substances Control – May 31, 2022
The comment letter provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides a clarification related to the separate components of the Cortese List. As stated on page 161 of the SCEA IS, the project site is not located on DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, which is a component of the Cortese List. In addition, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the proposed project and reviewed during preparation of the SCEA IS included a review of regulatory agency records and a mapped database records search.1 The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment confirms that the project site is not located on any of the other components of the Cortese List (i.e., the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database, the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders [CDO] and Cleanup and Abatement Orders [CAO] from the Water Board). Thus, the project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and the conclusion presented in the SCEA IS remains accurate.

Groups
San Francisco International Airport – May 26, 2022
The comment letter concurs with the SCEA IS in that that the project site is located outside of the San Francisco International Airport’s 65 decibel contour, and the proposed project would not be inconsistent with any applicable noise and safety policies adopted in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. In addition, the comment letter notes that the proposed project remains subject to review by the Federal Aviation Administration. The comment letter does not identify any inadequacies in the SCEA IS. 1 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard [pg 9-15]. December 20, 2017.

City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
40 Airport Blvd Project
SCEA Initial Study
FINAL JUNE 2022
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study Page i
May 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................ 1 B. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY . 2 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3 D. CEQA STREAMLINING................................................................................................19 E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................26 F. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.........................................................27 G. DETERMINATION.........................................................................................................28 I. AIR QUALITY. ...................................................................................................96 II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................118 III. CULTURAL RESOURCES. .............................................................................124 IV. ENERGY. ........................................................................................................129 V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...................................................................................134 VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ................................................................. 143 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ..................................................156 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................164 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ..........................................................................173 X. NOISE. ............................................................................................................176 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES.........................................................................................191 XII. RECREATION. ................................................................................................197 XIII. TRANSPORTATION........................................................................................199 XIV. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................215 XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ............................................................219 XVI. WILDFIRE........................................................................................................230 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ...............................................232 H. SOURCES ..................................................................................................................234 APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment Results
Appendix C: Arborist Report
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: CAP Development Review Checklist
Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G: Technical Noise Study
Appendix H: Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix I: Transportation Demand Management Plan
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 1 ends

May 2022
A. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study (SCEA IS) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code (PRC).

PROJECT TITLE: 40 Airport Blvd Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 Airport Blvd Project (proposed project) would involve demolition of the existing on-site building and redevelopment of the project site with one eightstory building containing 292 multi-family residential units. The proposed building would include 308 parking stalls on two levels of podium parking, approximately 17,566 square feet (sf) of amenity space, and associated improvements. Landscaping improvements would be provided throughout the project site, including new trees and shrubs along the Airport Boulevard frontage, within the fourth-floor courtyard, and throughout the rooftop terrace. In addition, 15 percent of the units would be made available below market rate (5 percent to very-low-income households and 10 percent to low-income households).

PROJECT LOCATION: The project site consists of an approximately 1.63-acre parcel located at 40 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-126-010) in the City of South San Francisco, California.

NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: City of South San Francisco CONTACT PERSON/INFORMATION: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner, (650) 877-8535, [email protected].

NAME OF AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT: City of South San Francisco REQUIRED FINDINGS: The City of South San Francisco has determined that:
1) the project is consistent with the density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in the Plan Bay Area prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG); 2) the project qualifies as a transit priority project pursuant to PRC Section 21155(b); 3) the project is a residential or mixed-use project as defined by PRC Section 21159.28(d);
4) the project as mitigated incorporates all relevant and feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set forth in both the Plan Bay Area Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the General Plan EIR;
5) all potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been identified and analyzed in an initial study; and
6) the project, as mitigated, either avoids or mitigates to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the project required to be analyzed pursuant to CEQA.

Therefore, the City of South San Francisco finds that the proposed project complies with the requirements of CEQA for using a SCEA as authorized pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2(b).

The attached Environmental Checklist/IS has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco in support of this SCEA IS. Further information including the project file and supporting reports and studies may be reviewed at the City’s Planning Department, located at 315 Maple Avenue, 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 2 ends

May 2022
South San Francisco, CA 94080. However, until further notice, the project file and supporting documents should be reviewed online, as City offices are currently closed to the public due to COVID-19 restrictions.

MITIGATION MEASURES: Pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the PRC, this SCEA IS: 1) incorporates all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set forth in the prior applicable EIRs, including the Plan Bay Area EIR, and adopted in findings made pursuant to Section 21081; and 2) contains measures that either avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the project required to be identified in this IS.

City of South San Francisco
California, a Municipal Corporation
By: ________________________________ Date: ______________________________ B. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

INITIAL STUDY
Project Title: 40 Airport Blvd Project
Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Lead Agency Contact: Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner (650) 877-8535
[email protected]
Project Location: The project site consists of an approximately 1.63-acre parcel located at 40 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-126-010) in the City of South San Francisco, California.

Project Applicant: Blake Griggs Properties, LLC
550 Hartz Avenue, Suite 220
Danville, CA 94526
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 3 ends

May 2022
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the 40 Airport Blvd Project (proposed project), including the project site’s current location and setting, as well as a discussion of the project components and necessary discretionary actions.

Project Location and Setting
The 1.63-acre project site is located at 40 Airport Boulevard (APN 015-126-010) in the City of South San Francisco, California (see Figure 1). The site is bound by Caltrain railroad tracks to the north, a restaurant to the south, a hotel and US 101 to the east, and Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue, commercial businesses, and industrial businesses to the west (see Figure 2). The entire site is located within 0.5-mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The City of South San Francisco General Plan designates the site as Business Commercial (BC) and the site is zoned Freeway Commercial (FC). The project site is located within the boundaries of the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), which designates the site as Business Commercial (BC).

The project site is currently developed with an approximately 35,000-sf two-story commercial building, which is used as an office, storage, and assembly facility for a produce distribution company. The existing development also includes a paved parking area.

Project Components
The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing building and subsequent redevelopment of the project site with one eight-story apartment building with 292 multi-family residential units. In addition, the proposed building would include 308 parking stalls on two levels of podium parking, approximately 17,566 sf of amenity space, and associated improvements.

Refer to Figure 3 for a computer rendering of the completed project.

The proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Site Plan – Design Review. The requested entitlements for the project are discussed in the following sections.

General Plan Land Use Map Amendment
The adopted General Plan designates the project site as BC. In order to accommodate the proposed project, the applicant has proposed a General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to redesignate the project site from BC to Downtown Transit Core (DTC).1 Pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element, the DTC allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre, and a minimum of 80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 180 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for development meeting specified criteria. The proposed project is consistent with the allowable DTC density, given that the project density is 179.1 dwelling units per acre (292 units on 1.63 acre).
1 The City of South San Francisco recently adopted a text amendment to the General Plan as part of a separate development project (124 Airport Blvd/100 Produce Ave Residential Project). The text amendment added new text to the General Plan, allowing the City to apply the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) land use designation to additional areas it deems appropriate for transit-oriented development.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 4 ends

May 2022
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Location
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 5 ends

May 2022
Figure 2
Project Site
Project
Site
Restaurant
Hotel
Industrial
Businesses
Car Rental
Agency
Car Rental
Agency
Commercial
Businesses
Office
Buildings
(Planned
Residential)
Industrial
Businesses
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 6 ends

May 2022
Figure 3
Completed Project Perspective
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 7 ends

May 2022
The project, and proposed General Plan Amendment, would also be consistent with the Preferred Land Use Alternative endorsed by the South San Francisco City Council in November 2020, in connection with the City’s ongoing 2040 General Plan update process. Under the Preferred Land Use Alternative, the project site would be designated Urban Residential.2 The Urban Residential land use designation is intended to provide higher-density (up to 180 dwelling units per acre) residential areas with a variety of multi-family housing choices.

Specific Plan Amendment
The project site is located within the DSASP, and is designated BC therein. As part of the project, a Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to amend the DSASP Land Use Plan to remove the project site from the Specific Plan. Doing so allows the proposed project to propose new residential development, without using development capacity within the DSASP.

Zoning Map Amendment
The project site is currently zoned FC, which does not allow residential uses, and would require a Zoning Map Amendment to accommodate the proposed project. By applying a General Plan designation that allows high-density residential uses, the proposal would qualify the project for Planned Development (PD) zoning, consistent with Chapter 20.140 of the Municipal Code. Thus, the project includes a request to rezone the site from FC to PD.

The PD zoning would incorporate certain land uses and development standards from the existing DTC zoning district, including multi-family residential at a maximum density of up to 180 units per acre (subject to meeting specified criteria). The DTC zoning district is appropriate given the similarly sized projects in the vicinity. The PD zoning could also incorporate land uses allowed by the existing FC zoning district that the property owners want to retain.

Transportation Demand Management Plan
The project would include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan intended to help alleviate congestion on local roadways. A TDM Plan has been prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (see Appendix I). The TDM measures for the project were developed consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s DSASP goals to “provide for a balanced mix of travel modes – including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and automobiles.” TDM measures could include, but are not limited to, providing a designated transportation coordinator, provision of secure long-term bicycle parking, bike repair standards/kiosks, carpool/vanpool incentives, subsidized transit passes, car share programs, etc. The TDM Plan is subject to review and approval by the City.

Site Plan – Design Review
Following demolition of the existing on-site structure, the proposed project would involve construction of an approximately 332,726-sf building consisting of 292 multi-family residential units distributed throughout eight levels, 15 percent of which will be made available below market rate (5 percent to very-low-income households and 10 percent to low-income households). The units would range in size from 383- to 1,106-sf, and would consist of 89 one-bedroom units, 122 two-bedroom units, 59 three-bedroom units, and 22 four-bedroom units. Table 1 shows the proposed unit breakdown for each floor of the building. In addition, the building would include 308 parking stalls on two levels of podium parking. The two levels of podium parking would have a higher clearance than the indoor floors and, thus, comprise the first three floors of the proposed 2 City of South San Francisco. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan: Preferred Alternative. October 2020. Available at:
https://shapessf.com/preferredalternative/. Accessed January 4, 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 8 ends

May 2022
building. Garage access would be provided from Airport Boulevard via a private access road along the southern and eastern borders of the site, which is shared by the proposed building and the existing adjacent hotel. Refer to Figure 4 for the Preliminary Site Plan.

Table 1
Proposed Unit Mix
Unit Type
Floor
1 Floor
2 Floor
3 Floor
4 Floor
5 Floor
6 Floor
7 Floor
8 Total
1 Bedroom 6 6 7 14 14 14 14 14 89
2 Bedroom 4 4 5 21 22 22 22 22 122
3 Bedroom 3 4 4 9 10 10 10 9 59
4 Bedroom 0 2 3 4 4 4 4 1 22
Total Units 13 16 19 48 50 50 50 46 292
The proposed building would also include approximately 17,566 sf of amenity space consisting of a 2,400-sf resident café (resident use only), 2,250-sf community room, 1,600-sf leasing office, dog run and dog spa on the first level; bicycle storage on the second level; storage units on the second and third levels; a podium deck/courtyard and fitness center on the fourth level; and a club room and roof deck on the eighth floor. Approximately half of the proposed units would include a private outdoor balcony, for a total of 140 decks and 6,720 sf of deck area. The maximum height of the proposed building would be approximately 95 feet to the top parapet, and 85 feet to roof sheathing (see Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Parking
The proposed project would provide parking for motorized vehicles and bicycles. A Parking Summary is presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2
Parking Summary
Parking Type Number of Spaces
Open/Surface Parking Stalls 4 (1)
Standard Garage Parking Stalls 77 (8)
Automated Parking Stalls* 227
Short Term Bike Parking 31
Long Term Bike Parking 104
* Automated parking stalls refer to individual spaces in an automatic parking system, which are structures where cars are stacked vertically to reduce parking space. The automatic parking system transports vehicles from the entrance to the parking space without the driver.
( ) Values presented in parenthesis represent the number of spaces that would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant.

The City of South San Francisco requires a minimum of one parking space per residential unit.

The proposed project would exceed the City’s parking requirement by providing a total of 308 vehicle parking spaces, resulting in a ratio of 1.05 spaces per unit. Due to the availability of transit options and bicycle facilities near the project site, it is reasonable to assume that not all residents of the proposed development would own a car and require a parking space. Thus, the vehicle parking demand will likely be less than the City’s parking requirement. In addition, the proposed project would include 31 short-term bicycle parking spaces, which meets the City requirement for the project. The project would include a total of 104 long-term bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the City’s Code requirement for the project of 73 spaces. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 9 ends

May 2022
Figure 4
Site Plan
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 10 ends

May 2022
Figure 5
South and West Exterior Elevations
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 11 ends

May 2022
Figure 6
North and East Exterior Elevations
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 12 ends

May 2022
Landscaping
The proposed project would provide landscaping improvements throughout the project site, including new trees and shrubs along the Airport Boulevard frontage, within the fourth floor courtyard, and throughout the rooftop terrace (see Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). The fourth floor courtyard would include several recreational facilities, including: a multi-purpose lawn, outdoor fitness area, a fire pit and lounge, and a general outdoor common area with a kitchen, bar, and dining table.

Vegetative screening would be planted along the eastern site boundary to shield views of the parking garage entry from the existing hotel. A dog run is proposed on the ground floor at the northern boundary of the project site as part of the landscaping plan, and would include synthetic turf, perimeter fencing, and seating areas.

All landscaping improvements would be subject to the Landscape Design Principles set forth in Section C of Chapter 20.300.007 of the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to abide by the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). All planted areas would include a minimum of three inches of mulch, would be watered with an automated underground irrigated system, and would be organized according to irrigation hydrozones.

Utilities and Service Systems
The following section describes sewer, stormwater, and water service at the project site. The Utility Plan is included as Figure 10.

Sewer
The City of South San Francisco owns and maintains the sanitary sewer system adjacent to the project site. The project would connect via a new six-inch sewer lateral to the existing sanitary sewer line that extends within Airport Boulevard. In addition, as part of the project, 230 lineal feet of sewer pipeline within Airport Boulevard would be upsized in order to accommodate the increased flows.

Water
The potable water distribution system in the project area is owned and operated by the California Water Service Company. Water mains currently exist in the north side of Airport Boulevard. The proposed building would connect to a four-inch domestic water line for residential use, a two-inch water line for commercial use, a two-inch water line for irrigation, and an eight-inch water line for fire protection.

Two existing fire hydrants in the eastern portion of the site would remain. Based on preliminary fire flow calculations, the fire flow per construction type would be 5,750 gallons per minute (gpm).

The City allows a 50 percent reduction with an approved fire sprinkler system and, therefore, the required fire flow for the proposed building is 2,875 gpm.

Stormwater
The City of South San Francisco also owns and maintains the existing storm drain system adjacent to the site, in Airport Boulevard. The proposed project would treat stormwater from the project site using a combination of self-retaining/self-treating areas, bioretention, and media filters (see Figure 11). The project site is divided into eight drainage management areas (DMAs), and stormwater from each DMA would be directed towards the identified treatment measure with eventual discharge to the City’s storm drain line in Airport Boulevard. DMA 1 includes a dog run that is self-retaining/self-treating.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 13 ends

May 2022
Figure 7
Landscaping Plan – Ground Floor
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 14 ends

May 2022
Figure 8
Landscaping Plan – Fourth Floor Courtyard
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 15 ends

May 2022
Figure 9
Rooftop Terrace Amenities
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 16 ends

May 2022
Figure 10
Utility Plan
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 17 ends

May 2022
Figure 11
Preliminary Stormwater Plan
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 18 ends

May 2022
DMA 6 consists of landscaping along the rear of the building and is also self-retaining. DMAs 2 through 5 and 7 and 8, generally consisting of roof or concrete surfaces, would direct runoff towards separate bioretention areas or flow-through planters. Additionally, as part of the project, a new eight-inch stormwater line would collect stormwater from DMA 4 and direct it towards a new PerkFilterTM media filtration vault and ultimately into the City’s stormwater system.

Per the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-0074, certain “Special Projects” are eligible for Low Impact Design (LID) Treatment Reduction Credits. The LID Treatment Reduction Credit is the maximum percentage of the amount of runoff that may be treated with non-LID treatment measures, such as tree-box-type high flowrate biofilters or vault-based high flowrate media filters. The project site is classified as a Category C Special Project (transit-oriented development) and qualifies for a 75 percent LID treatment reduction. Per the Countywide Hydromodification Control Area Map in the San Mateo County C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Appendix H, the proposed project would not be subject to hydromodification requirements.3
Site Access
Access to the project site would be provided from Airport Boulevard by the shared privatelyowned driveway/access road which extends along the eastern and southeastern site boundaries.

The majority of the shared driveway (approximately 17,190 sf) would be repaved as part of the proposed project, a portion of which would be surfaced with pavers. Entrance to the parking garage would be accommodated by a 25.5-foot-wide entrance at the eastern side of the building.

The shared driveway would be adequately sized for emergency vehicle access, and the eastern corner of the project site could be used as a staging area in the case of emergency.

The project would also include construction of a new curb, gutter, and ten-foot-wide sidewalk along the Airport Boulevard frontage. The sidewalk would connect to the existing pedestrian network along Airport Boulevard.

Discretionary Actions
Implementation of the proposed project would require City approval of the following entitlements:
• General Plan Amendment
• Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment
• Zoning Map Amendment
• Transportation Demand Management Plan
• Site Plan – Design Review: Per Section 20.480.002 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would be subject to Design Review by the City. Specifically, the site plan would be analyzed based on the physical features of the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the following elements: building proportions and architectural details; site design and orientation; size, location, and arrangement of on-site parking; exterior colors and materials; and location and type of landscaping. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that development throughout the City is designed to support General Plan policies and to promote high-quality design, well-crafted and maintained buildings and landscaping, the use of high-quality building materials, and attention to the design and execution of building details and amenities in both public and private projects. 3 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: Version 3.2 [Page H-3]. January 4, 2013.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 19 ends

May 2022
Additionally, the City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County, in its capacity as Airport Land Use Commission, will need to make certain compatibility findings regarding the project as it relates to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the San Francisco International Airport.

D. CEQA STREAMLINING
The California State Legislature has adopted statutory provisions to enable streamlined environmental review for “transit priority projects” that are consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in a sustainable communities strategy (see PRC Sections 21155 et seq.). For the project region, the applicable regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy is Plan Bay Area 2040 (hereafter referred to as “Plan Bay Area”), adopted by ABAG on July 26, 2017.4

It is noted that the update to the Plan Bay Area, Plan Bay Area 2050, was adopted by ABAG in October of 2021. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21155(a), a transit priority project must be, “consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.” Plan Bay Area 2050 has not yet been accepted by the State Air Resources Board, and is anticipated to be adopted in late spring/summer 2022.5 As a result, Plan Bay Area 2040 remains the appropriate document for CEQA streamlining based on PRC criteria.

Transit Priority Project
Under section 21155(a), to receive streamlining benefits, a project must meet the following criteria to qualify as a transit priority project:
(1) Contain at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage and, if the project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio not less than 0.75;
(2) Provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; and (3) Be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the 4 As required by Senate Bill 375, all metropolitan regions in California must complete a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of a Regional Transportation Plan. In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are jointly responsible for developing and adopting a SCS that integrates transportation, land use and housing to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 5 Szeto, Lezlie Kimura, Manager, Sustainable Transportation & Communities Division, California Air Resources Board. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management.

February 7, 2022.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 20 ends

May 2022
stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.

With respect to Criterion 1, the project contains 100 percent residential uses, with a total of 292 multi-family units. Total residential building square footage is 205,024 square feet, with an additional 17,566 square feet for leasing/amenities, 44,813 square feet for circulation, and 64,686 square feet for parking. The floor area ratio for the proposed building is 4.7. Therefore, the project meets Criterion 1.

With respect to Criterion 2, the project provides a net density of 179.1 dwelling units per acre (292 units/1.63 acres). Therefore, the project meets Criterion 2.

With respect to Criterion 3, the project site is located within one-half (0.5) mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station in both its existing and new locations (see Figure 12). The Caltrain station, in both locations, is considered to be a major transit stop by the MTC/ABAG.6

The Caltrain Station, in its existing and new location, meets the major transit stop criteria of PRC Section 21064.3 because the stops are considered rail transit stations.7The new Caltrain station, known as the South San Francisco Caltrain Improvement Project, is nearly complete. The Caltrain project involves replacing the existing South San Francisco Station towards the south, on the other side of Grand Avenue, with a new center-boarding platform connecting to a pedestrian underpass. The project consists of track work, signal work, a new 700-foot center board platform with amenities and connectivity to a new pedestrian underpass from the platform to Grand Avenue and Industrial Way.

Because the project meets all three criteria of Section 21155(b), it qualifies as a transit priority project.

Sustainable Communities Strategy
A transit priority project must also be consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified in a sustainable communities strategy. The project would qualify for streamlining if it is consistent with such land use designation, requirements and policies under Plan Bay Area. Here, Plan Bay Area does not identify individual land use designations, nor does it impose specific density or building intensity standards. Instead, the Plan divides the Plan area among Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). PDAs and TPAs are areas designated for future growth and development.8 PDAs and TPAs (which may overlap) are similar in that both focus on access to transit service and are appropriately planned for growth. The major difference is how they are designated: A PDA is identified by a local agency for adoption by ABAG; a TPA is defined based on criteria in state law. PCAs are open spaces that provide agricultural, natural resource, scenic, recreational, and/or ecological values and ecosystem functions. 6 See http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/major-transit-stops-2017?geometry=-122.430%2C37.648%2C122.372%2C37.660. Accessed April 5, 2020. 7 According to PRC 21064.3, “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 8 PDAs are specific geographic areas that meet the following criteria: 1) within an existing community; 2) within walking distance of frequent transit service; 3) designated for more housing in a locally adopted plan or identified by a local government for future planning and potential growth; and 4) nominated through a resolution adopted by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors. Staff recommendations are presented to ABAG’s Regional Planning Committee for approval and then to ABAG’s Executive Board for regional adoption. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 21 ends

May 2022
Figure 12
Transit Priority Areas as Identified by the MTC
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission GIS. Transit Priority Areas (2017) Available at:
http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/d97b4f72543a40b2b85d59ac085e01a0_0?geometry=-122.461%2C37.641%2C-122.346%2. Accessed March 2021.

Project Site
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 22 ends

May 2022
As shown in Table 1.2-8 of the Plan Bay Area EIR, the land use growth footprint covers 18,700 acres of land in the Bay Area. Within that area 7,400 acres, or approximately 40 percent of the land use growth footprint, would be located in TPAs. Approximately half of the land use growth footprint would be located within PDAs. As further indicated in Table 1.2-8, the land use growth footprint of San Mateo County contains 170 acres of land designated TPA, including the project site.

Because the project site is located within a TPA that is part of the land use growth footprint for Plan Bay Area (refer to Figure 12), the project is consistent with the land use and development growth assumptions within the Plan.

The project is also consistent with the other applicable policies in Plan Bay Area, as demonstrated in Table 3. It should be noted that Plan Bay Area does not explicitly include policies, but rather action items. In the absence of specific policies, this document will address project consistency with the action items included in Plan Bay Area.

Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
Because the project is a transit priority project and is consistent with the Plan Bay Area, it qualifies for CEQA streamlining. The available streamlining benefits include, but are not limited to:

1. Review through a SCEA. (PRC, § 21155.2)

2. For a residential or mixed-use project, such as the proposed project:
a. The SCEA is not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts, or (2) any project specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network. (PRC, § 21159.28, subd. [a])
b. Alternative locations, densities, and building intensities to the proposed project need not be considered. (PRC, § 21159.28, subd. [b])
c. Aesthetic and parking impacts should not be considered significant impacts on the environment. (PRC, § 21099, subd. [d][1])
Projects within a TPA are identified by the MTC/ABAG and Senate Bill (SB) 375 as being Transit Priority Projects. Pursuant to PRC § 21099, subd. (d)(1) and PRC § 21159.28, subd. (a), Transit Priority Projects are not required to discuss the following environmental impact areas:
• Aesthetics and parking;
• Growth-inducing impacts; and
• Project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light trucks generated by the project on GHG emissions or the regional roadway network.

In addition, the below environmental impact areas represent those that can be dismissed based on the project’s urban infill location or other relevant factors.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
There are no agricultural or forestry resources on the project site or in the surrounding area, which is fully urbanized. Thus, the project has no potential for impacts to agricultural or forestry resources.

40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 23 ends

May 2022
Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources on the project site. The site is not designated for mineral resource recovery on any land use plan, and the proposed development would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resources. Thus, the project has no potential for impacts to mineral resources.

Population and Housing
The CEQA checklist questions under Population and Housing address whether the project would:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Item ‘a’ focuses on growth-inducing impacts, which, pursuant to PRC, § 21159.28, subd. (a), is not a required topic for projects that qualify for CEQA Streamlining. Because the proposed project qualifies for CEQA Streamlining, this SCEA is not required to analyze growth-inducing impacts such as direct or indirect unplanned population growth in an area.

Item ‘b’ is related to the displacement of people or housing. The project site is currently developed with a two-story commercial warehouse building, and implementation of the project would involve the demolition of the on-site building. However, considering that the on-site building is not used as a residence, demolition of the building would not displace existing people or housing. As such, implementation of the project would result in no impact related to Item ‘b’, and the item is hereby dismissed from further analysis within the SCEA.

Plan Bay Area Consistency Discussion
As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the general land use and development assumptions within the Plan Bay Area. Table 3 includes a comparison of how the proposed project complies with applicable action items in the Plan Bay Area. The following action items apply to local jurisdictions.

Table 3
Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area
Action Items Consistency Discussion
Housing Actions
Advance regional “self-help” funding and financing
solutions for housing: Develop a plan for generating
regional revenues for the production and preservation
of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income
households (could include measures such as a parcel
tax, commercial linkage fee or other dedicated
funding). Evaluate the creation of innovative financing tools, such as a regional infill Infrastructure Bank, a land bank or a Regional Housing Trust Fund, to
support new housing or infrastructure improvements.

This action focuses on developing regional
affordable housing strategies, which is beyond
the scope of this project. The project will
designate 15 percent of units as affordable
and/or low-income. Therefore, the project would
generally comply with the intent of this action
item.

Advance state legislative and funding solutions:

Support state legislative or funding opportunities that advance the objectives of this Action Plan, including
securing a permanent source of affordable housing
funding, increasing community stabilization and
This action focuses on developing statewide
affordable housing strategies, which is beyond
the scope of this project. The proposed project
would result in the production of 292 units of
new housing, 15 percent of which would be
(Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 24 ends

May 2022
Table 3
Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area
Action Items Consistency Discussion
lessening displacement risk, reducing costs and
barriers to housing development, incentivizing
developers to create workforce and low-income
housing, incentivizing the creation of accessory
dwelling units, as well as other measures that will
contribute to increased supply of both market-rate and
affordable housing.
below market rate. In addition, because the
project includes units with a mix of studios, one,
two, three and four bedrooms, the project would
provide workforce housing. Therefore, the
project would generally comply with the intent of
this action item.

Evaluate expanded policies connecting transportation
funding to housing production and performance:

Analyze the feasibility of incentivizing housing
production with pertinent existing and new
transportation funding sources, with particular
emphasis on housing affordable to very low-, low- and
moderate-income households as well as antidisplacement and community stabilization. Develop a strategy for the use of public land proximate to major
transit assets to facilitate the development of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households
through conditions and provisions on funding sources.

Report to the Commission on all discretionary funding
sources where such housing provisions and
conditions may be added.

Evaluating expanded policies related to
transportation funding and housing production
is beyond the scope of this project. It is noted
that the proposed project would include the
development of new housing, with 15 percent of
the units designated as affordable, within close
proximity to major transit assets (i.e., the South
San Francisco Caltrain station).

The project site is not public land and therefore
developing a strategy for the use of public land
proximate to major transit assets to facilitate the
development of affordable housing is not
directly applicable, and beyond the scope of this
project.

Provide technical assistance and best practices to
local jurisdictions related to the transformation of
“opportunity areas”: Assist local agencies as they
envision upgrades to low-intensity office parks and
retail centers to create mixed-use, mixed income
neighborhoods with significant housing.

Because the site is located within a TPA, the
project site is located within an opportunity area
for development. The redevelopment of the
project site from low-intensity commercial to
high-density residential with significant housing
would directly comply with this suggested action
item.

Strengthen technical assistance and policy leadership
for housing and community stabilization: Expand and
transform regional agency technical assistance for
local jurisdictions that is tailored to both Bay Area-wide challenges and challenges unique to specific parts of
the region, including best practices to support new
housing (e.g., heights that support more units and
allow projects to “pencil out” without compromising
neighborhood character). Focus areas for technical
assistance could include guidance on implementing
state legislation for transit-oriented development and
the production of housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income households, guidance on housing
preservation and locally appropriate community
stabilization and anti-displacement policies,
supporting healthy infill development, and
coordination of neighboring jurisdictions along transit corridors and in subregions to identify shared
solutions to housing challenges. Explore new and
expanded community stabilization and antidisplacement policies to support low-income renters, including incentives for landlords to keep existing
rents affordable.

This action focuses on developing regional
affordable housing strategies, which is beyond
the scope of this project. Nonetheless, the
proposed project is considered a transitoriented development, would include production of affordable housing, and is an infill
redevelopment. As such, the project would
generally comply with the intent of this action
item.
(Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 25 ends

May 2022
Table 3
Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area
Action Items Consistency Discussion
Economic Development Actions
Action Items Consistency Discussion
Coordinate regional economic solutions for growing
and retaining businesses, particularly for middle-wage
sectors: Identify areas of economic development that
could benefit from a regional approach including
connecting businesses with growth opportunities
within the Bay Area; prioritizing transportation
investments that directly grow local businesses;
identifying solutions for workforce housing needs; and
creating a forum for discussing skill gaps between
existing community college programs and the needs
of trade sectors.

This action item is focused on regional
economic solutions, which are beyond the
scope of this project. Because the proposed
project would involve the demolition of the
existing on-site commercial building, the project
may result in a short-term adverse effect related
to economic development in the immediate
vicinity. However, by developing housing in a
TPA that includes a mix of unit sizes, the project
would create workforce housing and support
local businesses while reducing commuteassociated VMT. Therefore, the project would generally comply with this action item.

Increase transportation access to growing and
potential job centers: Broaden core capacity transit
study partnership to cover a larger geography to plan
for major transportation capital investments; move
forward on planning efforts for a second Transbay
Tube and on construction efforts for the California
High Speed Rail system; continue to evaluate a
means-based fare or other methods for reducing or
eliminating transportation costs for lower-wage
workers and students; evaluate expanded support for
local transit systems that address first-mile, last-mile problems; and evaluate transportation improvements
that could facilitate downtown revitalization in areas
needing economic development.

This action item is focused on regional
cooperation regarding future transportation
capital investments and improvements, which is
beyond the scope of this project. It is noted that
the project, by introducing additional residents
near the South San Francisco Caltrain station,
provides expanded support for the station.

Support regional growth by balancing housing, transitoriented jobs, and industrial uses: Establish criteria for Priority Production Areas to encourage local
jurisdictions to plan for space needed for
manufacturing, distribution and repair and assess
areas that could be converted to housing or mixed-use
development; evaluate potential incentives that could
be used to support companies that locate offices in
transit-rich as opposed to auto-centric areas; and
evaluate the use of last-mile transportation solutions
to connect communities with warehouses and
industrial jobs that cannot be located in downtowns
due to land requirements.

This action item is focused on regional growth
criteria and incentives, which is beyond the
scope of this project. Nonetheless, the
proposed project involves production of a
transit-oriented residential development within a
TPA, and would include the conversion of an
area from commercial to housing. As such, the
project would generally comply with the intent of
this action item.

Resilience Actions
Action Items Consistency Discussion
Develop a regional governance strategy for climate
adaptation projects: Develop an institutional strategy
for managing, coordinating, and implementing
regional and local projects related to climate change
adaptation.

This action item is focused on regional levels
and, therefore, does not apply to the proposed
project.

Provide stronger policy leadership on resilient housing and infrastructure: Expand guidance on resilient
housing policies for earthquake, flooding and fire,
This action item is regionally focused and,
therefore, beyond the scope of this project.

Nonetheless, the proposed project would
(Table continued on next page)
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 26 ends

May 2022
Table 3
Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area
Action Items Consistency Discussion
working in coordination with state and federal
agencies and focusing on communities with high
social vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards.

Strengthen infrastructure lifelines to ensure that
utilities can provide services under a variety of
conditions and future scenarios.
comply with all relevant regulations related to
earthquake, flood, and fire resilience. As such,
the proposed project would generally comply
with the intent of this action item.

Expand the region’s network of natural infrastructure:

Coordinate regional programs to preserve and expand
natural features that reduce flood risk, strengthen
biodiversity, enhance air quality, improve access to
urban and rural public space, mitigate urban heat
island effects, and enhance health. Leverage existing
initiatives — including Priority Conservation Areas
(PCAs), the Resilient by Design Challenge, the Bay
Trail and other regional trails, San Francisco Estuary
Partnership, and Bay Restoration Authority — and
partner with special districts and cities.

This action item is regionally focused and,
therefore, beyond the scope of this project.

Because the proposed project would involve
infill redevelopment within a TPA, the project
would not conflict with this measure. Therefore,
the project would generally comply with this
action item.

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. Plan Bay Area 2040 EIR.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources
Energy Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Public Services Recreation Noise Utilities and Service
Systems
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Tribal Cultural
Resources
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 27 ends

May 2022
F. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Following is the environmental checklist form (also known as an “Initial Study”) presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist, with the exception of those issue areas that are exempt from analysis for Transit Priority Projects (i.e., aesthetics; agricultural and forestry resources; mineral resources; population and housing; growth-inducing impacts; and project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light trucks generated by the project on GHG emissions or the regional roadway network), as noted previously under Section D, CEQA Streamlining. Included in each discussion are project-specific mitigation measures recommended as part of the project, if necessary, to reduce an identified impact.

For this checklist, the following designations are used:

Potentially Significant: An impact that could be significant, and for which mitigation has not been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared. A SCEA cannot be used in the case of a project for which this conclusion is reached in any impact category.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This designation applies where applicable and feasible mitigation measures previously identified in prior applicable EIRs have reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”, and pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the PRC, those measures are incorporated into the SCEA IS.

In each impact section of the SCEA IS checklist below, applicable mitigation measures from the City of South San Francisco General Plan EIR and Plan Bay Area EIR are identified, and where feasible, identified for incorporation into the project. It is noteworthy that the General Plan EIR incorporates General Plan policies in the form of mitigation measures. In this way, the General Plan is a “self-mitigating” document. Other than General Plan policies, there are no additional mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR.

This designation also applies where the incorporation of new project-specific mitigation measures not previously identified in prior applicable EIRs has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
Less Than Significant: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA, relative to existing standards specific to each environmental issue.

No Impact: The project would not have any impact.

The below summary table presents mitigation measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR. Due to the programmatic nature of the Plan Bay Area EIR, many of the mitigation measures are broad in scope and their applicability needs to be determined through project-specific environmental review. This SCEA determines the applicability of Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation measures to the proposed project. Such applicability is noted in the below table. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 28 ends

Construction Best Practices for
Exhaust:
• The applicant/general
contractor for the project shall
submit a list of all off-road
equipment greater than 25
horsepower (hp) that would
be operated for more than 20
hours over the entire duration
of project construction,
including equipment from
subcontractors, to BAAQMD
for review and certification.

The list shall include all
information necessary to
ensure the equipment meets
the following requirement:
o Be zero emissions OR
2) have engines that
The proposed project would exceed the
construction criteria pollutant screening
size, as presented in Table 2.2-8 of the Plan
Bay Area EIR. However, it is noted that the
project’s modeled emissions would be
below the BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance for construction, as
demonstrated in Table 5 of this SCEA.

Nevertheless, given the project’s reliance on
the Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA
streamlining purposes, Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.2-2 is applicable to the
proposed project and will be incorporated
into the project.

LTS
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 29 ends

Equipment with
engines that meet Tier
4 Interim or Tier 4 Final
emission standards
automatically meet this
requirement; therefore,
a VDECS would not be
required.
o Idling time of dieselpowered construction
equipment and trucks
shall be limited to no
more than two minutes.

Clear signage of this
idling restriction shall
be provided for
construction workers at
all access points.
o All construction
equipment shall be
maintained and
properly tuned in
accordance with the
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 30 ends

Construction Best Practices for
Dust:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g.,
parking areas, staging areas,
soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall
be watered two times per day.

For projects over five acres in
size, soil moisture should be
maintained at a minimum of
12 percent. Moisture content
can be verified by lab samples
or a moisture probe.
• All haul trucks transporting
soil, sand, or other loose
material off-site shall be
covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out
onto adjacent public roads
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 31 ends

The recommended response
time for corrective action shall
be within 48 hours.

BAAQMD’s Complaint Line
(1-800-334-6367) shall also
be included on posted signs
to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
• All excavation, grading,
and/or demolition activities
shall be suspended when
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 32 ends

Page 33 ends

These BMPs are consistent with
recommendations in BAAQMD’s
CEQA Guidelines and Planning
Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2010b,
BAAQMD 2016). Applicable
mitigation measures shall be
required at the time grading permits
are issued.
c.Would the
project expose
sensitive
receptors to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations?
S None 2.2-5(a). When locating sensitive receptors in
TAC risk areas, implementing
agencies and/or project sponsors
shall implement measures, where
feasible and necessary based on
project- and site-specific
considerations that include, but are
not limited to the following:
• Install, operate and maintain
in good working order a
central heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC)
system or other air intake
system in the building, or in
each individual unit, that
meets or exceeds a minimum
efficiency reporting value
(MERV) of 13 (MERV-16 for
While the effects of TACs on future
residents is beyond the scope of CEQA,
insofar as it pertains to the environment’s
effect on the project, this issue has been
addressed given the SCEA’s reliance on the
Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA streamlining
purposes.

Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-
5(a) is programmatic in nature, providing a
menu of options that may be considered on
a project-specific basis to reduce TAC risks.

Project-specific Mitigation Measure I-1
below represents the modified mitigation
measure.

I-1 Prior to approval of project
improvement plans, the project
applicant shall demonstrate
LTS
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 34 ends

May 2022
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
projects located in the West
Oakland Specific Plan area)9
or higher. The HVAC system
shall include the following
features: Installation of a high
efficiency filter and/or carbon
filter to filter particulates and
other chemical matter from
entering the building. Either
high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters or American
Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and AirConditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) certified 85%
supply filters shall be used.
• Maintain, repair and/or
replace HVAC system on an
ongoing and as needed basis
or shall prepare an operation
and maintenance manual for
the HVAC system and the
filter. The manual shall
include the operating
instructions and the
maintenance and
replacement schedule. This
manual shall be included in
the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for
residential projects and/or
distributed to the building
compliance with the following design
features to the satisfaction of the
City:
• Install, operate and maintain
in good working order a
central heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC)
system or other air intake
system in the building, or in
each individual unit, that
meets or exceeds a
minimum efficiency reporting
value (MERV) of 16 or
higher, except the units that
are located within or partially
within the TAC Risk Area
presented in Figure 13 shall
install, operate and maintain
HVAC systems that meet or
exceed a minimum MERV of
16 or higher. The HVAC
system shall include the
following features:

Installation of a high
efficiency filter and/or carbon
filter to filter particulates and
other chemical matter from
entering the building. Either
high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters or American
Society of Heating,
9 Note: Reference to “West Oakland Specific Plan” is from the adopted Mitigation Measure language. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 35 ends

May 2022
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
maintenance staff. In addition,
the applicant shall prepare a
separate homeowners
manual. The manual shall
contain the operating
instructions and the
maintenance and
replacement schedule for the
HVAC system and the filters.
• Install passive electrostatic
filtering systems with low air
velocities (i.e., less than 1
mph).
• Individual and common
exterior open space and
outdoor activity areas
proposed as part of individual
projects shall be located as far
away as possible within the
project site boundary, face
away major freeways, and
shall be shielded from the
source (i.e., the roadway) of
air pollution by buildings or
otherwise buffered to further
reduce air pollution for project
occupants.
• Locate air intakes and design
windows to reduce PM
exposure (e.g., windows
nearest to the roadway do not
open).
• If sensitive receptors are
located near a distribution
Refrigeration, and AirConditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) certified 85
percent supply filters shall be
used.
• Maintain, repair and/or
replace HVAC system on an
ongoing and as needed
basis, and prepare an
operation and maintenance
manual for the HVAC system
and the filter. The manual
shall include the operating
instructions and the
maintenance and
replacement schedule. This
manual shall be included in
the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
for residential projects
and/or distributed to the
building maintenance staff.

In addition, the applicant
shall prepare a separate
homeowners manual. The
manual shall contain the
operating instructions and
the maintenance and
replacement schedule for
the HVAC system and the
filters.
• Individual and common
exterior open space and
outdoor activity areas
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 36 ends

May 2022
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
center, residents shall not be
located immediately adjacent
to a loading dock or where
trucks concentrate to deliver
goods.
• Sensitive receptors within
buildings shall be located in
areas upwind of major
roadway traffic to reduce
exposure to reduce cancer
risk levels and exposure to
PM2.5.
• Planting trees and/or
vegetation between sensitive
receptors and pollution
source. Trees that are best
suited to trapping PM shall be
planted, including one or more
of the following species: Pine
(Pinus nigra var. maritima),
Cypress (X Cupressocyparis
leylandii), Hybrid popular
(Populus deltoids X
trichocarpa), California
pepper tree (Schinus molle)
and Redwoods (Sequoia
sempervirens).
• Loading docks shall be
required to include electric
hookups for visiting trucks.
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel
trucks at these locations shall
be prohibited or limited to no
more than 2 minutes.
proposed as part of
individual projects shall be
located as far away as
possible within the project
site boundary, face away
major freeways, and shall be
shielded from the source
(i.e., the roadway) of air
pollution by buildings or
otherwise buffered to further
reduce air pollution for
project occupants.
• Planting trees and/or
vegetation between
sensitive receptors and
pollution source. Trees that
are best suited to trapping
PM shall be planted,
including one or more of the
following species: Pine
(Pinus nigra var. maritima),
Cypress (X Cupressocyparis
leylandii), Hybrid popular
(Populus deltoids X
trichocarpa), California
pepper tree (Schinus molle)
and Redwoods (Sequoia
sempervirens).
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel
trucks at these locations
shall be prohibited or limited
to no more than 2 minutes.
• If within the project site,
existing and new diesel
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 37 ends

These BMPs are consistent with
recommendations in BAAQMD’s
CEQA Guidelines and Planning
Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2011,
BAAQMD 2016).
generators shall meet
CARB’s Tier 4 emission
standards.

Based on the project-specific analysis in this
SCEA, the following additional measures
are required:

I-2. Prior to the issuance of any
construction permits, the project
applicant shall contract with a
qualified geologist to prepare an
evaluation for the potential presence
of Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
(NOA). If NOA is not discovered
during the survey, further mitigation
related to NOA is not required. If
NOA is discovered during the
survey, the project applicant shall
prepare an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan, pursuant to § 93105, Title 17,
California Code of Regulations, and
subject to approval by BAAQMD.

The applicant shall submit the
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan to the
City’s Planning Division for review
and approval.

I-3 Prior to issuance of a demolition
permit for any on-site structures,
the project applicant shall consult
with certified Asbestos and/or Lead
Risk Assessors to complete and
submit for review to the City’s
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 38 ends

If asbestos-containing materials
and/or lead-containing materials
are discovered by the survey, the
project applicant shall prepare a
work plan to demonstrate how the
on-site asbestos-containing
materials and/or lead-containing
materials shall be removed in
accordance with current California
Occupational Health and Safety
(Cal-OSHA) Administration
regulations and disposed of in
accordance with all CalEPA
regulations, prior to the demolition
and/or removal of the on-site
structures. The plan shall include
the requirement that work shall be
conducted by a Cal-OSHA
registered asbestos and lead
abatement contractor in
accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529
and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding
asbestos and lead training,
engineering controls, and
certifications. The applicant shall
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 39 ends

Page 40 ends

May 2022
Summary Table
CEQA Checklist
Question
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
General
Plan EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation
Measures
Project-Specific Applicability
and/or Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
II-2. If nesting raptors or other migratory
birds are detected on or adjacent to
the site during the survey, the project
applicant shall be responsible for
establishing an appropriate
construction-free buffer around all
active nests. Actual size of buffer
would be determined by the project
biologist, and would depend on
species, topography, and type of
activity that would occur in the
vicinity of the nest. Typical buffers
are 25 feet for non-raptors and up to
250 feet for raptors. The project
buffer shall be monitored
periodically by the project biologist
to ensure compliance. The project
applicant shall ensure that these
buffer distances and monitoring
requirements are met. After the
nesting is completed, as determined
by the biologist, the buffer would no
longer be required. The project
applicant shall also ensure that
these buffers remain in place for the
duration of the breeding season or
until a qualified biologist has
confirmed that all chicks have
fledged and are independent of their
parents.
b.Would the
project have a
substantial
adverse effect
NI None None applicable based on the projectspecific analysis conducted in this SCEA.None N/A 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 41 ends

Page 42 ends

Page 43 ends

The evaluation shall be
prepared by an architectural
historian, or historical
architect meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.11-1, the Cultural and
Historic Resources Existing Conditions
Report evaluates structures throughout the
City for historical significance, and did not
identify the on-site structure as a historically
significant resource. Thus, the proposed
project would comply with the first item in
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-
1, wherein the project would avoid impacts
to identified historic resources, and the
second item, wherein structures greater
than 45 years in age must be evaluated for
historical significance. As such, Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 has
already been implemented. No further
mitigation is required.

Page 44 ends

Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic
Preservation, Professional
Qualification Standards. The
evaluation should comply
with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5(b), and, if
federal funding or permits are
required, with Section 106 of
the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470 et
seq.). Study
recommendations shall be
implemented.
• If avoidance of a significant
architectural/built
environment resource is not
feasible, additional mitigation
options include, but are not
limited to, specific design
plans for historic districts, or
plans for alteration or
adaptive re-use of a historical
resource that follows the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitation, Restoring, and
Reconstructing Historic
Buildings.
• Comply with existing local
regulations and policies that
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 45 ends

2.11-2. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement the
following measures where feasible
and necessary based on projectand site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• Before construction activities,
project sponsors shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to
conduct a record search at
the appropriate Information
Center to determine whether
the project area has been
previously surveyed and
whether resources were
identified. When
recommended by the
Information Center, project
sponsors shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to
conduct archaeological
surveys before construction
activities. Project sponsors
shall follow recommendations
identified in the survey, which
may include activities such as
subsurface testing, designing
and implementing a Worker
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-
2 is applicable to the proposed project and
will be implemented.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 46 ends

Page 47 ends

IV. ENERGY
a.Would the
project result in
potentially
LTS None None None N/A
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 48 ends

LTS None None None N/A
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 49 ends

42. aii. Strong
seismic
ground
shaking?
a.iii Would the
project directly
or indirectly
S None None V-1. Prior to approval of construction
permits, the applicant shall retain a
qualified geologist to prepare a siteLTS
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 50 ends

The project applicant shall submit
results of the design-level
geotechnical exploration to the City’s
Planning Division and/or City
Engineer for review and approval.
a.iv Would the
project directly
or indirectly
cause potential
substantial
LTS None None None N/A
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 51 ends

LTS
d.Would the
project be
located on
expansive soil,
as defined in
Table 18-1B of
LTS None None None N/A
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 52 ends

Page 53 ends

Page 54 ends

Page 55 ends

Page 56 ends

VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a.Would the
project generate
greenhouse gas
emissions, either
directly or
indirectly, that
may have a
significant
impact on the
environment?
LTS None None applicable based on the projectspecific analysis conducted in this SCEA.None N/A 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 57 ends

Page 58 ends

VII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures I-2
and I-3.
c.Would the
project emit
hazardous
emissions or
handle
hazardous or
acutely
hazardous
materials,
substances, or
waste within
one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed
school?
NI None None None N/A
d.Would the
project be
located on a site
which is
included on a list
of hazardous
materials sites
compiled
pursuant to
Government
NI None 2.13-4 Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• If the project is located on or
near a hazardous material
and/or waste site pursuant to
Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.13-4, a Phase I ESA
was prepared for the proposed project.

According to the Phase I ESA, the project
site is not located on or near a hazardous
material and/or waste site pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. Due to
the age of the existing structure, the
potential exists that residual hazardous
materials (i.e., NOA, ACMs, or LBP) exist
NI
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 59 ends

Additional information regarding the results
of the Phase I ESA is available in Section
VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of
this SCEA.

Based on the above, Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.13-4 has been fully
implemented. No further mitigation is
required.
e.For a project
located within an
airport land use
plan or, where
such a plan has
not been
LTS None None None N/A
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 60 ends

Page 61 ends

Page 62 ends

Page 63 ends

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

According to Appendix B, Asset Exposure
Maps, of the County of San Mateo Sea
Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, the
project site is located just outside of the
projected High Scenario Sea Level Rise
(SLR) boundaries. The High scenario
shows the possible extent of flooding during
a 1 percent chance annual storm plus 6.6
feet of sea level rise and is considered a
NI
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 64 ends

b.Would the
project cause a
significant
environmental
impact due to a
conflict with any
land use plan,
policy, or
regulation
adopted for the
purpose of
LTS None None applicable based on the projectspecific analysis conducted in this SCEA.None N/A 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 65 ends

Page 66 ends

2.6-2. For all new development that could
be located within the 70 dBA CNEL
noise contour of a roadway (within
270 feet of the roadway’s centerline
based on freeways with the greatest
volumes in the region), a site specific
noise study shall be conducted by a
qualified acoustical engineer or
noise specialist, to evaluate noise
exposure at new receptors and
recommend appropriate measures
to reduce noise exposure. To reduce
exposure from traffic-noise, lead
agencies and/or project sponsors
Although not required by CEQA, consistent
with the Plan Bay Area EIR, the applicant
shall prepare a site-specific noise study to
evaluate noise exposure at new receptors
and recommend appropriate measures to
reduce such noise exposure. The City shall
review and approve the transportation noise
study prior to issuance of building permits.

The noise study shall comply with the
requirements of Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measures 2.6-2, 2.6-3(a), 2.6-
3(b), and 2.6-4(a).
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 67 ends

Page 68 ends

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

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

2.6-4(a). When finalizing site plans for a
development or transportation
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 69 ends

2.6-5. To reduce exposure to new and
existing sensitive receptors from
non-transportation noise associated
with projected development,
implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• Local agencies approving
land use projects shall require
that routine testing and
preventive maintenance of
emergency electrical
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-
5 is applicable to the proposed project, and
will be implemented. Refer to Section X,
Noise, of this SCEA for additional
information.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 70 ends

Equipment enclosures shall
be oriented so that major
openings (i.e., intake louvers,
exhaust) are directed away
from nearby noise-sensitive
receptors.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 71 ends

Local lead agencies for all new
development proposed to be located
within an existing airport influence
zone, as defined by the locally
adopted airport land use
compatibility plan or local general
plan, shall require a site-specific
noise compatibility. The study shall
consider and evaluate existing
aircraft noise, based on specific
aircraft activity data for the airport in
question, and shall include
recommendations for site design
and building construction to ensure
compliance with interior noise levels
of 45 dBA CNEL, such that the
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-
6 is applicable to the proposed project and
will be implemented.

Page 72 ends

XII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project
result in substantial
adverse physical
impacts associated
with the provision of
new or physically
altered
governmental
facilities, need for
new or physically
altered
governmental
facilities, the
construction of
which could cause
significant
environmental
impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable
service ratios,
response times or
other performance
objectives for any of
the public services:
a. Fire
protection?
b. Police
protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
LTS None 2.14-1. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include but are not limited to:
• Prior to approval of new
development projects, local
agencies shall ensure that
adequate public services, and
related infrastructure and
utilities, will be available to
meet or satisfy levels
identified in the applicable
local general plan or service
master plan, through
compliance with existing local
policies related to minimum
levels of service for schools,
police protection, fire
protection, medical
emergency services, and
other government services
(e.g., libraries, prisons, social
services). Compliance may
include requiring projects to
either provide the additional
services required to meet
service levels, or pay fees
towards the project’s fair
As described in further detail in Section XII,
Public Services, of this SCEA, adequate
public services exist to serve the proposed
project. As such, this SCEA demonstrates
compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.14-1. No further
mitigation is required.

Page 73 ends

XIII. RECREATION
a.Would the
project increase
the use of
existing
neighborhood
and regional
parks or other
recreational
facilities such
that substantial
physical
deterioration of
the facility would
occur or be
accelerated?
b.Does the project
include
recreational
facilities or
require the
construction or
expansion of
recreational
facilities which
might have an
adverse physical
effect on the
environment?
LTS None None applicable based on the projectspecific analysis conducted in this SCEA.None N/A 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 74 ends

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 nonmotorized modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled on
the region’s roadways:

Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b), a TDM Plan
has been prepared for the proposed project
by Hexagon Transportation Consultants
(see Appendix I). The proposed TDM
includes measures that would incentivize
alternative travel and reduce VMT,
including, but not limited to, the following:
unbundled parking, bike repair stations,
carpool and vanpool incentives, public bike
and scooter share programs, rideshare
matching events, etc. As such, Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-3(b) has
already been implemented, and no further
mitigation is required. The City will require
implementation of the TDM through project
conditions of approval.

Page 75 ends

Page 76 ends

The increase in per capita VMT on
facilities experiencing LOS F
represents a significant impact
compared to existing conditions. To
assess whether implementation of
these specific mitigation strategies
would result in measurable traffic
congestion reductions,
implementing actions may need to
be further refined within the overall
parameters of the proposed Plan
and matched to local conditions in
any subsequent project-level
environmental analysis.
c.Would the
project
substantially
increase
hazards due to a
geometric
design feature
(e.g., sharp
curves or
dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible
uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
S None 2.1-7. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement the
following measure, where feasible
and necessary based on projectand site-specific considerations that include:

Implementing agencies shall require
implementation of best practice
strategies regarding construction
activities on the transportation
system and apply recommended
applicable mitigation measures as
defined by state and federal
agencies. Examples of mitigation
measures include, but are not limited
to, the following:

Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.1-
7 is applicable to the proposed project and
will be implemented.

In addition, based on the project-specific
analysis in this SCEA, the following
additional measure is required:

XIII-1. Prior to approval of project
improvement plans, the project
driveway and easement road
shall be resized to an appropriate
design vehicle (WB-40 trailer
truck or smaller) with the intent of
reducing the driveway and
easement road widths, in
consultation with City staff and
LTS
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 77 ends

Page 78 ends

Page 79 ends

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 sitespecific impacts to avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts:
• Within 14 days of determining
that a project application is
complete, or to undertake a
project, the lead agency must
provide formal notification, in
writing, to the tribes that have
requested notification of
proposed projects in the lead
agency’s jurisdiction. If it
wishes to engage in
consultation on the project,
the tribe must respond to the
lead agency within 30 days of
The City of South San Francisco has
provided notification of the proposed project
to Tribes identified by the Native American
Heritage Commission, pursuant to PRC
Section 21080.3.2. No Tribes have
requested consultation or provided
comments to Staff regarding the project.

The remaining requirements of Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-5 will be
carried out if necessary (e.g., TCRs are
found during construction).

Page 80 ends

In applying the
criteria set forth
in subdivision (c)
of Public
Resources Code
Section 5024.1,
the lead agency
shall consider
the significance
of the resource
to a California
receipt of the formal
notification. The lead agency
must begin the consultation
process with the tribes that
have requested consultation
within 30 days of receiving the
request for consultation.

Consultation concludes when
either: 1) the parties agree to
measures to mitigate or avoid
a significant effect, if a
significant effect exists, on a
tribal cultural resource, or 2) a
party, acting in good faith and
after reasonable effort,
concludes that mutual
agreement cannot be
reached.
• Public agencies shall, when
feasible, avoid damaging
effects to any TCR (PRC
Section 21084.3 (a).). If the
lead agency determines that a
project may cause a
substantial adverse change to
a tribal cultural resource, and
measures are not otherwise
identified in the consultation
process, new provisions in the
PRC describe mitigation
measures that, if determined
by the lead agency to be
feasible, may avoid or
minimize the significant
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 81 ends

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

B. Treating the resource
with culturally
appropriate dignity
taking into account the
tribal cultural values
and meaning of the
resource, including, but
not limited to, the
following:
 Protecting the
cultural character
and integrity of the
resource
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 82 ends

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

D. Protecting the
resource.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a.Would the
project require
or result in the
relocation or
construction of
new or
expanded water,
wastewater
treatment, or
storm water
drainage,
electric power,
natural gas, or
LTS None 2.12-3(a). Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project-and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA
review of individual future
projects, implementing
agencies and project
sponsors shall determine
whether sufficient stormwater
As part of this CEQA analysis, it has been
determined that sufficient stormwater
drainage, water supply, and wastewater
treatment facilities exist to serve the
proposed project. It is noted that, prior to
project construction, the wastewater main in
Airport Boulevard would be upsized to
adequately accommodate flows generated
by the proposed project. This improvement
would be required as a project condition of
approval. Therefore, this SCEA
demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay
LTS
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 83 ends

Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-3(a) and

2.12-4.

Refer to Section XVI, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this SCEA for additional
information.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 84 ends

2.12-4. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• For projects that could
increase demand on water
and wastewater treatment
facilities, project sponsors
shall coordinate with the
relevant service provider to
ensure that the existing public
services and utilities could
accommodate the increase in
demand. If the current
infrastructure servicing the
project site is found to be
inadequate, infrastructure
improvements for the
appropriate public service or
utility shall be identified in
each project’s CEQA
documentation. The relevant
public service provider or
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 85 ends

2.12-2 would reduce water
demand and wastewater
generation, and subsequently
reduce the need for new or
expanded water and
wastewater treatment
facilities. Mitigation Measures

2.12-3(a), 2.12-3(b), and

2.12-3(c) would also mitigate
the impact of additional
stormwater runoff from land
use and transportation
projects on existing
wastewater treatment
facilities.
b.Would the
project have
sufficient water
supplies
available to
serve the project
and reasonably
foreseeable
future
development
during normal,
LTS None 2.12-1(a). Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
measures, where feasible and
necessary based on project- and
site-specific considerations that
include, but are not limited to:
• For projects that could
increase demand for water,
project sponsors shall
coordinate with the relevant
water service provider to
As part of this CEQA analysis, it has been
determined that sufficient water supply is
available to serve the proposed project and
other existing and future development.

Therefore, this SCEA demonstrates
compliance with Plan Bay Area EIR
Mitigation Measures 2.12-1(a).

Refer to Section XVI, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this SCEA for additional
information.

Page 86 ends

Page 87 ends

Large developments could
treat wastewater onsite to
tertiary standards and use it
for non-potable uses onsite.
c.Would the
project result in
a determination
by the
wastewater
treatment
provider which
serves or may
serve the project
that it has
adequate
capacity to serve
the project’s
projected
demand in
addition to the
provider’s
LTS None 2.12-2. Implementing agencies and/or
project sponsors shall implement
mitigation measures, where
feasible and necessary based on
project- and site-specific
considerations that include, but are
not limited to:
• During the design and CEQA
review of individual future
projects, implementing
agencies and project
sponsors shall determine
whether sufficient wastewater
treatment capacity exists for a
proposed project. These
CEQA determinations must
As part of this CEQA analysis, it has been
determined that adequate wastewater
treatment facilities exist to serve the
proposed project. Therefore, this SCEA
demonstrates compliance with Plan Bay
Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.12-2.

Refer to Section XVI, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this SCEA for additional
information.

Page 88 ends

2.12-1(c) listed under Impact

2.12-1, as feasible based on
project- and site-specific
considerations to reduce
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 89 ends

Page 90 ends

XVII. WILDFIRE
If located in or near
state responsibility
areas or lands
classified as very
high fire hazard
severity zones,
would the project:
a.Substantially
impair an adopted
emergency
LTS None None None N/A
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; LTS = Less-than-Significant; S = Significant; Mitigation Measures presented in red text have already been implemented.

Page 91 ends

Page 92 ends

Page 93 ends

Page 94 ends

Page 95 ends

May 2022
G. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.

I find that the project is a qualified “transit priority project” that satisfies the requirements of Sections 21155 and 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), and/or a qualified “residential or mixed use residential project” that satisfies the requirements of Section 21159.28(d) of the PRC, and although the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case, because this Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Initial Study identifies measures that either avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the project.
__________________________________
Signature Date
Tony Rozzi City of South San Francisco____________
Printed Name For
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 96 ends

May 2022
I. AIR QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?    
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
   
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?    
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
   
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco is located at the northerly border of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS).

The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.

In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies.

The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with MTC and ABAG.

The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.

The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PM10, and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 4. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 97 ends

May 2022
Thus, by exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for construction or operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5 a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.

Table 4
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017.

In addition to criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a category of environmental concern. TACs are present in many types of emissions with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least 40 different TACs. In terms of health risks, the most volatile contaminants are diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde.

Gasoline vapors contain several TACs, including benzene, toluene, and xylenes. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations as well as accidental releases. Health risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, which typically are associated with long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. Health effects of exposure to TACs other than cancer include birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. Existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site are the single-family residences to the northwest, with the closest being approximately 400 feet away.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR addressed the potential effects of buildout of the General Plan on ambient air quality and the potential for exposure of people, especially sensitive receptors such as children or the elderly, to unhealthy pollutant concentrations. See General Plan EIR Chapter 4.4. a,b,c. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential for implementation of the General Plan to conflict with the applicable air quality plan, which was determined to be the 1991 Clean Air Plan, under Impact 4.4-b. The 1991 Clean Air Plan has since been superseded, and the most recent applicable air quality plan is now the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As such, the analysis included in the General Plan EIR under Impact 4.4-b is now outdated, and is not considered in this SCEA IS. Nonetheless, the following General Plan policies still apply to all new development projects throughout the City:
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 98 ends

May 2022
• 7.3-G-1: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. • 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit and carpooling.
• 7.3-G-3: Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another.
• 4.1-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled.
• 7.3-I-1: Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes.
• 7.3-I-2: Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality.

d. The General Plan EIR analyzed potential impacts related to dust, including PM10, during construction activities (Impact 4.4-a). Construction activities would comply with General Plan Policy 7.3-I-3 as follows:
• 7.3-I-3: Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines.

With implementation of Policy 7.3-I-3, development under the General Plan was concluded to result in a less-than-significant impact related to the emissions of dust affecting a substantial number of people.

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

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.2 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to Air Quality that may result from implementation of the proposed plan. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts.
a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to conflicting with or obstructing an applicable air quality plan, which was determined to be the 2010 and Draft 2017 Clean Air Plan (Impact 2.2-1). As noted in the Plan Bay Area EIR, projected growth under the Plan could result in the generation of additional emissions from stationary and mobile sources. However, considering the goal of the Plan is to reduce GHGs from the transportation sector and focus growth in areas that are served by public transit, the growth expected to occur under the Plan would be consistent with the goals and measures in the 2010 and 2017 Clean Air Plans. As such, growth under the Plan Bay Area would result in a less-than-significant impact. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that implementation of 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 99 ends

May 2022
the Plan would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plan for CAAQS or NAAQS.
b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed potential impacts related to a net increase of criteria pollutants during construction (Impact 2.2-2) and operations from on-road mobile and land use sources (Impact 2.2-3). As noted under Impact 2.2-2, construction activities related to implementation of the Plan could result in a substantial increase in criteria pollutants.

However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2.2-2, which requires compliance with all feasible construction best practices for exhaust and dust, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 2.2-3 discusses whether implementation of the Plan would generate a net increase in criteria pollutants from on-road mobile and land use sources. As noted therein, the Plan would result in a net decrease in ROG, NOX, and CO emissions, but an anticipated net increase in PM emissions, when compared to buildout without adoption of the Plan. The impact would be potentially significant.

However, Mitigation Measures 2.2-3(a) through 2.2-3(d) would help reduce PM emissions from mobile and area-sources, and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations in Impacts 2.2-4 and 2.2-5. Impact 2.2-4 concluded that because the Plan would result in an overall reduction in TAC emissions compared to buildout without adoption of the Plan, a less-than-significant impact would occur. However, as noted under Impact 2.2-5, implementation of the Plan could place new sensitive receptors in areas where TAC concentrations could result in cancer risk levels greater than 100 in a million. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure

2.2-5 (related to reducing TAC exposure), and there may be instances in which sitespecific or project-specific conditions preclude the reduction of all project impacts to less than the exposure criteria, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, and the mitigation reduces the impact below the applicable exposure criteria, the project’s impact related to TACs would be less than significant. d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the creation of objectionable odors resulting from project operation or construction activities affecting a substantial number of people (Impact 2.2-7). As noted in the Plan Bay Area EIR, development associated with the Plan is primarily related to residential uses, commercial facilities, and transportation-related infrastructure projects. Because such projects would not introduce new operational sources of odors, impacts related to operational emissions of objectionable odors would not be substantial. Plan-related construction activities could result in the generation of odors from diesel exhaust or paving activities. However, construction would be temporary and would be regulated by all applicable BAAQMD requirements. As such, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan would not result in the generation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of people, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 100 ends

May 2022
Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.2-3(a) through 2.2-3(d) would not apply to the proposed project because the operational screening levels would not be exceeded. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.2-2 and 2.2-5(a) would apply to the project and will be required:

2.2-2 When screening levels are exceeded (see Table 2.2-8 [of the Plan Bay Area EIR] or those most currently updated by BAAQMD), implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where applicable, feasible, and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations, that include, but are not limited to the following:

Construction Best Practices for Exhaust:
• The applicant/general contractor for the project shall submit a list of all offroad equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) that would be operated for more than 20 hours over the entire duration of project construction, including equipment from subcontractors, to BAAQMD for review and certification. The list shall include all information necessary to ensure the equipment meets the following requirement:
o 1) Be zero emissions OR 2) have engines that meet or exceed either EPA or ARB Tier 2 off-road emission standards; and 3) have engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS), if one is available for the equipment being used. Equipment with engines that meet Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final emission standards automatically meet this requirement; therefore, a VDECS would not be required.
o Idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks shall be limited to no more than two minutes. Clear signage of this idling restriction shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
o All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.
o Portable diesel generators shall be prohibited. Grid power electricity should be used to provide power at construction sites; or propane and natural gas generators may be used when grid power electricity is not feasible.

Construction Best Practices for Dust:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. For projects over five acres in size, soil moisture should be maintained at a minimum of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or a moisture probe.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. Dry power 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 101 ends

May 2022
sweeping should only be performed in conjunction with thorough watering of the subject roads.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadway, driveway, and sidewalk paving shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be paved as soon as possible after grading. • All construction sites shall provide a posted sign visible to the public with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. The recommended response time for corrective action shall be within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s Complaint Line (1-800-334-6367) shall also be included on posted signs to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
• Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
• The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and grounddisturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
• All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off before leaving the site.
• Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. • Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

These BMPs are consistent with recommendations in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines and Planning Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2010b, BAAQMD 2016).

Applicable mitigation measures shall be required at the time grading permits are issued.

2.2-5(a) When locating sensitive receptors in TAC risk areas, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to the following:
• Install, operate and maintain in good working order a central heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system or other air intake system in the building, or in each individual unit, that meets or exceeds a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 13 (MERV-16 for projects located in the West Oakland Specific Plan area) or higher. The HVAC system shall include the following features: Installation of a high efficiency filter and/or carbon filter to filter particulates and other chemical matter from entering the building. Either high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters or American 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 102 ends

May 2022
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) certified 85% supply filters shall be used.
• Maintain, repair and/or replace HVAC system on an ongoing and as needed basis or shall prepare an operation and maintenance manual for the HVAC system and the filter. The manual shall include the operating instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule. This manual shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for residential projects and/or distributed to the building maintenance staff.

In addition, the applicant shall prepare a separate homeowners manual.

The manual shall contain the operating instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule for the HVAC system and the filters. • Install passive electrostatic filtering systems with low air velocities (i.e., less than 1 mph).
• Individual and common exterior open space and outdoor activity areas proposed as part of individual projects shall be located as far away as possible within the project site boundary, face away major freeways, and shall be shielded from the source (i.e., the roadway) of air pollution by buildings or otherwise buffered to further reduce air pollution for project occupants.
• Locate air intakes and design windows to reduce PM exposure (e.g., windows nearest to the roadway do not open).
• If sensitive receptors are located near a distribution center, residents shall not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods.
• Sensitive receptors within buildings shall be located in areas upwind of major roadway traffic to reduce exposure to reduce cancer risk levels and exposure to PM2.5.
• Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution source. Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the following species: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), California pepper tree (Schinus molle) and Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens).
• Loading docks shall be required to include electric hookups for visiting trucks.
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks at these locations shall be prohibited or limited to no more than 2 minutes.
• If within the project site, existing and new diesel generators shall meet ARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.
• Emissions from diesel trucks shall be reduced through establishing truck routes to avoid residential neighborhoods or other land uses serving sensitive populations, such as hospitals, schools, and child care centers. A truck route program, along with truck calming, parking and delivery restrictions, shall be implemented to direct traffic activity at non-permitted sources and large construction projects.

These BMPs are consistent with recommendations in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines and Planning Healthy Places (BAAQMD 2011, BAAQMD 2016). 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 103 ends

May 2022
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the CARB on November 1, 2001. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. BAAQMD rules and regulations and the adopted thresholds of significance have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX, as well as for PM10 and PM2.5, are listed in Table 4, above. Thus, by exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.

The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2016.3.2 – a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, etc. Where project-specific information is available, such information should be applied in the model. For instance, the project applicant provided specific information regarding construction phasing and equipment, and Fehr & Peers, the transportation consultant for the proposed project, provided anticipated trip generation values. The following project characteristics and site design features were included in the modeling:
• Construction would begin in March of 2023, and occur over approximately 2.5 years;
• During site preparation and grading, 3,158 cubic yards (CY) of soil material would be exported from the site;
• Demolition would involve removal of 54,007-sf of material; • The project trip generation rate was set to 4.00 daily vehicle trips per unit, based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project;10 • Only natural gas hearths would be installed;
• The project would include on-site pedestrian facility improvements that would connect to existing facilities in the project area; and • The project would comply with all applicable provisions of the 2019 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), including installation of low-flow water fixtures and LED lights.

All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix A to this SCEA IS.

The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations are presented and discussed in further detail below. A discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality conditions is provided below as well. 10 Fehr and Peers. 40 Airport Blvd Transportation Impact Analysis. April 2022. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 104 ends

May 2022
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 5. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 5
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 11.28 54 NO
NOX 19.75 54 NO
PM10 (exhaust) 0.85 82 NO
PM10 (fugitive) 7.26 None N/A
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.79 54 NO
PM2.5 (fugitive) 3.47 None N/A
Source: CalEEMod, April 2022 (see Appendix A, pages 95 and 130).

All projects under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which include the following:

1. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

2. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

3. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

4. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

5. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

6. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

7. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

It is noted that the five-minute idling limitation required by BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measure 5 would be superseded by the two-minute idling limitation established in Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2. Construction equipment operating on-site would be limited to a maximum of two minutes of idling time.

The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed above would help to further minimize construction-related emissions. In particular, implementation of the foregoing measures would reduce fugitive 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 105 ends

May 2022
dust emissions resulting from project construction. Even without consideration of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as shown in Table 5, construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants below BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project construction.

Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 6.

Table 6
Unmitigated Maximum Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 9.89 1.66 54 10 NO
NOX 8.56 1.20 54 10 NO
PM10 (exhaust) 0.37 0.03 82 15 NO
PM10 (fugitive) 5.17 0.91 None None N/A
PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.37 0.03 54 10 NO
PM2.5 (fugitive) 1.38 0.24 None None N/A
Source: CalEEMod, April 2022 (see Appendix A, pages 58, 97, and 132).

As shown in the table, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project operation.

Cumulative Emissions
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 4 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions.11 If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 4, that project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As presented above, the proposed project would be below all applicable thresholds for criteria pollutants during construction and operation. Thus, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the region’s existing air quality conditions. 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 2-1].

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

Page 106 ends

May 2022
Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Because the proposed project would not result in construction-related or operational emissions of criteria air pollutants in excess of BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable regional air quality plans would not occur. In addition, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would result.

Although project-specific impacts have been determined to be less than significant, as discussed above, the Plan Bay Area EIR requires projects utilizing the CEQA streamlining provisions pursuant to SB 375 to implement the relevant mitigation measures prescribed within the Plan Bay Area EIR. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2 is hereby incorporated as a requirement of the proposed project. c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The project site is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. The nearest existing sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located approximately 400 feet northwest.

The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and TAC emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.

Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.

Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood.

In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 107 ends

May 2022
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).

With regard to the first point, the project site falls within the boundaries of the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).12 The purpose of the CMP is to identify strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop procedures to alleviate and control congestion, and promote countywide solutions. As noted in the CMP, the CMP was designed to be consistent with the growth projections included in Plan Bay Area, which provides the framework for what the Bay Area transportation network should look like in 2040.13 Considering the proposed project would be consistent with the Plan Bay Area (see Table 3), and the CMP is consistent with the Plan Bay Area, it follows that the proposed project would be consistent with the San Mateo County CMP.

With regard to the second and third points, and as discussed in Section XIII, Transportation, of this SCEA IS, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 742 daily trips, including 49 AM peak hour trips and 51 PM peak hour trips. Based on Figure C-1, Existing Traffic Volumes, of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for a separate nearby project, traffic volumes at the Airport Boulevard/Project Avenue/San Mateo Avenue/South Airport Boulevard intersection currently range between 2,640 and 3,400 trips per peak hour.14 Therefore, the addition of 49 AM peak hour and 51 PM peak hour trips from the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour at affected intersections, or to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited. The same conclusion would apply to other affected intersections in the project area. Therefore, based on the BAAQMD criteria, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emissions concentrations and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO.

TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards.15 The CARB has identified DPM from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micrometer in diameter and, thus, DPM is a subset of the PM2.5 category of pollutants.

The proposed residential building would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. Short-term, construction-related 12 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2019. April 9, 2020. 13 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2019 [pg 1]. April 9, 2020. 14 Fehr and Peers. 124 Airport/100 Product Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 30, 2020. 15 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 108 ends

May 2022
activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions. Construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project.

Health risks are typically associated with exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater), whereas the construction period associated with the proposed project would likely be limited to approximately 2.5 years.

Therefore, existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would not be exposed to construction-related emissions for an extended period of time and, accordingly, health risks are not anticipated.

All construction equipment and operation thereof for the proposed project would be regulated per the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to help reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment, including DPM. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. In addition, construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the day and only on portions of the site at a time.

Because construction equipment on-site would not operate for long periods of time and would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short duration of potential exposure to associated emissions, the potential for any one sensitive receptor in the area to be exposed to concentrations of pollutants for a substantially extended period of time would be low. In addition, as noted previously, the nearest existing sensitive receptor is located approximately 400 feet northwest of the site. DPM is highly dispersive in nature, and the concentration of DPM at the nearest sensitive receptor would be substantially reduced as compared to the concentration of DPM at the source.

Furthermore, the prevailing wind direction in South San Francisco is from the west, 16 which
would direct any DPM emissions towards the east, away from the nearest sensitive receptors. While the project site is located within the vicinity of existing hotel uses, such uses are not considered sensitive receptors for TACs according to the CARB Handbook.17 Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Operations of Nearby TAC Sources and effects on Future Receptors Impacts of the environment on a project (as compared to impacts of a project on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review. 18 While not a CEQA
16 Weather Spark. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in South San Francisco California, United States.

Available at: https://weatherspark.com/y/568/Average-Weather-in-South-San-Francisco-California-United-StatesYear-Round. Accessed January 4, 2022. 17 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective [pg 2].

April 2005. 18 “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Town of Los Angeles, (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473 (Ballona).) The California Supreme Court recently held that “CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents. What CEQA does mandate… is an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental hazards.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 392; 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 109 ends

May 2022
consideration, this issue is hereby addressed given the SCEA’s reliance on the Plan Bay Area EIR for CEQA streamlining purposes and its Mitigation Measure (2.2-5) regarding TAC Risk Areas. Pursuant to the BAAQMD’s interactive map, which shows areas with estimated elevated levels of TACs, the project site is located within a TAC Risk Area.19 According to BAAQMD, an impact associated with TACs would occur if the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source, or from the location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, would exceed the following:20
• An increase in cancer risk levels (from all local sources) of more than 100 persons in one million;
• A chronic non-cancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0; or • An annual average PM2.5 concentration (from all local sources) of 0.8 µg/m3 or greater.

A health risk assessment was conducted to evaluate all three criteria at the future residents of the proposed project. The primary sources of TACs that would affect future residents include: 1) existing stationary sources (i.e., emergency generators, gasdispensing facilities); 2) operations along the railway21,22 (located approximately 65 feet northwest of the project site); 3) vehicle traffic along US 101 (located approximately 250 feet east of the project site); and 4) vehicle traffic along other major roadways. Each source type is discussed in further detail below.

Based on the BAAQMD’s map of Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards, sources of TACs were identified within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site boundary at the following addresses:23
• 149 South Linden Avenue;
• 1479 San Mateo Avenue;
• 206 Baden Avenue;
• 303 Commercial Avenue;
• 27 South Linden Avenue;
• 99 Linden Avenue;
see also Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 197 [“identifying the effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA's legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes”], quoting Ballona, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 474.) In the case of the proposed project, the impact of placing future residents within a TAC Risk Area is considered an existing environmental condition that would affect future users/residents. 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Health Places Interactive Map. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=51c2d0bc59244013ad9d52b8c35cbf66.

Accessed May 2021. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 2-2].

May 2017. 21 It is noted that a separate freight train rail spur, not used by Caltrain, extends immediately north of the project site.

Although the spur is considered active, the railway only serves one customer (Pacific Agri-Products) and is, therefore, assumed to be used intermittently, as demand requires. 22 Personal Communication. Francisco J Castillo, Senior Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific and Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning and Management [email]. June 28, 2021. 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65.

Accessed May 2021.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 110 ends

May 2022
• 201 Gateway Boulevard;
• 221 Airport Boulevard;
• 35 South Linden Avenue;
• 177 South Airport Boulevard; and
• 140 Produce Avenue.

The cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and concentration of PM2.5 from each stationary source was provided through consultation with the BAAQMD.24 The BAAQMD’s Health Risk Calculator (Beta 4.0) Distance Multiplier Tool was used to refine and adjust the values for cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and concentration of PM2.5 to represent those that can realistically be expected with farther distances from the source of emissions.

With regard to mobile sources of TACs, as part of its Planning Healthy Places initiative, the BAAQMD modeled the concentration of PM2.5 and associated cancer risk resulting from major roadways, highways, and railways, including Caltrain,25 throughout the Bay Area.26 The BAAQMD datasets are ArcMap raster files with cancer risk per million people and concentration of PM2.5 in micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3 ). The BAAQMD relied
on EMFAC2014 data for fleet mix, and used OEHHA’s 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Guidance Methods. Two dispersion models were applied in developing the dataset: the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) and CALINE model.

AERMOD was used to disperse unit emissions from on-road mobile sources, and CALINE was applied to disperse unit emissions from railways, including freight, passenger, and commute lines. The exposure period for developing the dataset was 30 years.27 The chronic hazard risk associated with mobile sources of TACs are assumed to be less than one.28
The BAAQMD’s data was used to determine that areas in the project vicinity where the cumulative cancer risk and concentration of PM2.5 from all major sources of TACs would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance. The results of the cancer risk analysis are visually presented in Figure 13. As shown in the figure, a portion of the project site is located in an area where the unmitigated cancer risk would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for cumulative cancer risk. However, only the northwestern portion of the proposed building includes areas that exceed the threshold without mitigation. The remainder of the proposed project would be exposed to a less-thansignificant cumulative cancer risk level. The maximum cumulative cancer risk at the anticipated maximally exposed receptor, represented by a white outline in Figure 13, would be 130.25 cases per million persons (see Table 7). 24 Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. May 12, 2021. 25 It is noted that the Caltrain system is currently in the process of electrification. The electrification of the Caltrain was considered in the Planning Healthy Places modeling. 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. May 2016. 27 Hanson, Matthew, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [email], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. January 12, 2022. 28 Flores, Areana, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Personal communication [phone], Briette Shea, Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician, Raney Planning & Management. April 5, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 111 ends

May 2022
Figure 13
Health Risk Assessment Cancer Risk Results: Unmitigated TAC Risk Area The areas shaded in
red represent portions
of the site where the
unmitigated cancer
risk would exceed the
BAAQMD’s non-CEQA
cumulative threshold of
significance.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 112 ends

May 2022
Table 7
Maximum Unmitigated Health Risk
Cancer Risk (per
million persons)
Chronic
Hazard Index
Concentration of
PM2.5 (µg/m3)
Mobile Sources 120.26 <1.015 0.44
Stationary Sources 4.50 0.01 0.00
Total 124.76 <1.025 0.44
Thresholds of Significance 100 10.0 0.80
Exceed Thresholds? YES NO NO
Sources: June 2021 (see Appendix B).

As a result, implementation of the proposed project could result in a cancer risk in excess of the BAAQMD’s non-CEQA standards of significance.

Plan Bay EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a) and the 2019 CBSC requires projects to include a minimum MERV 13 filter in the HVAC system for all units, including units located within the TAC risk area. For projects within the West Oakland Specific Plan area, Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a) requires MERV 16 filters. MERV 13 filters are rated to capture 80 to 90.9 percent of particles that are 1.3 to 3.0 microns in size, and over 90 percent of particles that are 3.0 to 10.0 microns in size.29 In addition, the upgrade from standard home filters to MERV 13 filters has been shown to result in a decrease in mortality of 0.5 per 1,000 persons.30 Therefore, the inclusion of MERV 13 filters in the proposed project would dramatically reduce resident PM2.5 exposure. In fact, the installation of upgraded MERV rating filters has been shown to reduce indoor PM2.5 exposure by 19 to 28 percent.31 A linear relationship exists between PM2.5 concentration and the associated cancer risk when all other variables, including exposure time, remains constant. Therefore, in the case of the proposed project, a 19 to 28 percent reduction in PM2.5 concentration would equate to a 19 to 28 percent reduction in cancer risk. After installation of MERV 13 filters, the project-specific cancer risk can reasonably be expected to range between 89.83 to 101.06 cases per million, which still has the potential to exceed the applicable threshold of significance. As a result, similar to the requirement for the West Oakland Specific Plan area, the units located within the red area shown in Figure 13 shall be required to include MERV 16 filters. Because MERV 16 filters are able to remove approximately five percent more particles sized 1.0 to 3.0 microns as compared to MERV 13 filters, 32 the estimated
cancer risk is reasonably anticipated to be reduced to 85.34 to 96.00 cases per million.

Furthermore, the proposed project would provide additional features consistent with those listed under Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a), including, but not limited to, the following:
• The project applicant would maintain, repair and/or replace HVAC systems on an ongoing and as needed basis; and
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ): What is a MERV rating? Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating-1. Accessed May 2021. 30 W.J. Fisk and W. R. Chan. Effectiveness and cost of reducing particle-related mortality with particle filtration.

February 1, 2017. 31 M.S. Zuraimi and Zhongchao Tan. Impact of residential building regulations on reducing indoor exposures to outdoor PM2.5 in Toronto. March 14, 2015. 32 Lake Air. MERV Rating Chart. Available at: https://www.lakeair.com/merv-rating-explanation/. Accessed April 2022.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 113 ends

May 2022
• The main courtyard/outdoor activity area has been designed to be located outside of the TAC Risk Area and would be shielded from pollution sources by the proposed buildings.

Project-specific Mitigation Measure I-1, included below, identifies which specific measures are applicable to the proposed project. The inclusion of such features would reduce the health impact to a less-than-significant level.

Lead-Based Paint, Asbestos-Containing Building Material, and Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Lead-based paint (LBP) is defined as any paint, varnish, stain, or other applied coating that has one milligram per cubic centimeter or greater (5,000 micrograms per gram or 5,000 parts per million) of lead by federal guidelines. Lead is a highly toxic material that may cause a range of serious illnesses and, in some cases, death. In buildings constructed after 1978, LBP is unlikely to be present. Structures built prior to 1978 and especially prior to the 1960s should be expected to contain LBP.

Asbestos is the name for a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals that are considered to be “fibrous” and, through processing, can be separated into smaller and smaller fibers. The fibers are strong, durable, chemical resistant, and resistant to heat and fire. They are also long, thin and flexible, so they can even be woven into cloth. Because of these qualities, asbestos was considered an ideal product and has been used in thousands of consumer, industrial, maritime, automotive, scientific and building products.

However, later discoveries found that, when inhaled, the material caused serious illness.

For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation (boiler insulation, pipe lagging, and related materials) and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestoscontaining material” (ACM) unless proven otherwise through sampling in accordance with the standards of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. ACMs could include, but are not limited to, plaster, ceiling tiles, thermal systems insulation, floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, adhesives, and roofing materials.

As noted in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the proposed project, the on-site buildings were constructed circa 1950. Therefore, demolition of the buildings could result in emissions of LBP and/or asbestos-containing building materials.

According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project, the project site is underlain by Franciscan Formation bedrock.33 Based on the bedrock formation’s association with naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA), ground disturbance associated with redevelopment of the site could create asbestos-containing dust, which could become airborne. Construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors could become exposed to such airborne TACs. Consequently, the proposed project could generate substantial concentrations of TACs, specifically asbestos, during construction. 33 GEOCON Consultants, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Multifamily Development 40-60 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, California. January 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 114 ends

May 2022
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Although not required to mitigate a significant impact for purposes of CEQA, dwelling units of the project that are within the TAC risk area (38 total units along the northwest corner of the building) will be required to install MERV 16 filters and the project will have features consistent with those listed in Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a). Because of the type of bedrock underlying the project site, and due to the age of the existing buildings, construction activities associated with the proposed project could expose receptors to asbestos-containing dust, asbestos-containing building materials, or LBP. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3 listed below would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure I-1, adapted from Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a), is required under PRC Section 21155.2 and is not required to reduce an impact identified under CEQA. The City will require implementation of such mitigation as a condition of approval for the proposed project. d. Emissions of concern include those leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in sections “a” through “c” above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.

Per the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.34 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor.

Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses and is not located in the vicinity of any such existing or planned land uses.

Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable.

However, construction activities would be temporary, and hours of operation for construction equipment would be restricted per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.14.070, “Work Hours”. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities. In addition, existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site are the single-family residences to the 34 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1].

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

Page 115 ends

May 2022
northwest, with the closest being approximately 400 feet away. Because odors dissipate with distance, any potential objectionable odors associated with construction would likely disperse prior to reaching nearby sensitive receptors.

As noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The measures would act to reduce construction-related dust by ensuring that haul trucks with loose material are covered, reducing vehicle dirt track-out, and limiting vehicle speeds within the project site, among other methods, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, all areas of the project site not developed with structures would be paved or landscaped. Thus, project operations would not generate significant amounts of dust that could adversely affect a substantial number of people.

For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would result.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Project-specific Mitigation Measure I-1 is adapted from Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-5(a).

I-1 Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following design features to the satisfaction of the City:
• Install, operate and maintain in good working order a central heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system or other air intake system in the building, or in each individual unit, that meets or exceeds a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 13 or higher, except the units that are located within or partially within the TAC Risk Area presented in Figure 13 shall install, operate and maintain HVAC systems that meet or exceed a minimum MERV of 16 or higher. The HVAC system shall include the following features: Installation of a high efficiency filter and/or carbon filter to filter particulates and other chemical matter from entering the building.

Either high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters or American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) certified 85 percent supply filters shall be used.
• Maintain, repair and/or replace HVAC system on an ongoing and as needed basis or shall prepare an operation and maintenance manual for the HVAC system and the filter. The manual shall include the operating instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule. This manual shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for residential projects and/or distributed to the building maintenance staff.

In addition, the applicant shall prepare a separate homeowners manual.

The manual shall contain the operating instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule for the HVAC system and the filters. • Individual and common exterior open space and outdoor activity areas proposed as part of individual projects shall be located as far away as 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 116 ends

May 2022
possible within the project site boundary, face away major freeways, and shall be shielded from the source (i.e., the roadway) of air pollution by buildings or otherwise buffered to further reduce air pollution for project occupants.
• Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution source. Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the following species: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid popular (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), California pepper tree (Schinus molle) and Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens).
• Idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks at these locations shall be prohibited or limited to no more than 2 minutes.
• If within the project site, existing and new diesel generators shall meet CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.

I-2 Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, the project applicant shall contract with a qualified geologist to prepare an evaluation for the potential presence of Naturally-Occurring Asbestos (NOA). If NOA is not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to NOA is not required. If NOA is discovered during the survey, the project applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan, pursuant to § 93105, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, and subject to approval by BAAQMD. The applicant shall submit the Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan to the City’s Planning Division for review and approval.

I-3 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk Assessors to complete and submit for review to the City’s Planning Division an asbestos and lead survey. If asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials are not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials shall not be required.

If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a work plan to demonstrate how the on-site asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with current California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Administration regulations and disposed of in accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior to the demolition and/or removal of the on-site structures. The plan shall include the requirement that work shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding asbestos and lead training, engineering controls, and certifications. The applicant shall submit the work plan to the City’s Planning Division for review and approval.

Findings
Air pollutants are generated by nearly all developments and economic activity in the Bay Area.

Air pollution is regulated on the federal, State, and local level, and BAAQMD is the regional agency that oversees air pollution regulation, planning, and rulemaking. While air quality impacts usually result from regional trends, individual projects may contribute to such regional trends.

BAAQMD has established quantitative emissions thresholds, which allow for analysis of potential air quality impacts that may result from an individual project’s emissions. As discussed above, the 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 117 ends

May 2022
proposed project would not result in air quality emissions that would violate the applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement all relevant BAAQMD BMPs, which would further reduce PM emissions. However, because the project site is located within a TAC Risk Area, the project could result in a non-CEQA health risk impact to future residents. Implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure I-1, adapted from Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation 2.2-5(a), would reduce any potential health risk related to TACs to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the project could result in emissions of asbestos-containing dust and/or ACMs and/or LBP during demolition, which could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. The implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures I-2 and I-3 would ensure that the potential impact related to NOA exposure and ACMs and LBP would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. In addition, implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.2-2 is required. Based on the above, the project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Air Quality. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 118 ends

May 2022
II. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
   
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
   
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
   
Environmental Setting
The Bay Area supports numerous distinct natural communities composed of a diversity of vegetative types that provide habitat for a wide variety of plant and wildlife species. Broad habitat categories in the region include grasslands, coastal scrub and chaparral, woodlands and forests, riparian systems, freshwater and saltwater aquatic habitat, and wetlands.

The project site is currently developed with a commercial warehouse building and associated paved areas. Foliage on the site is limited to two ornamental trees and sparse volunteer vegetation along the Airport Boulevard frontage. Because the project site is overlain by impermeable surfaces and located within a highly developed area of the City, significant habitats or natural communities do not exist in proximity to the project site. Water features, including wetlands, do not exist on the project site.

For the purposes of this environmental document, “special-status” has been defined to include the following:
• Plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Both acts afford protection to listed species; • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue; • CDFW fully protected species; and
• Species on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists 1 and 2. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 119 ends

May 2022
Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally do not have special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most birds in the U.S., including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
Chapter 4.13 of the General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of the General Plan on biological resources. The General Plan EIR identified potential impacts in terms of degradation of the quality of the environment or reduction of habitat or wildlife and/or plant populations below self-sustaining levels.
a-f. Under Impact 4.13-a, the General Plan EIR notes that buildout under the General Plan could affect sensitive habitats and special-status plant and animal species through direct mortality or indirectly, through habitat loss. Implementation of the General Plan could also result in degradation of non-sensitive habitats and common wildlife species, as discussed under Impact 4.13-c. Development within the City would result in the direct removal of non-native grassland habitat, and may result in additional habitat loss or degradation during construction and operations. Such habitat disturbances during construction and operations could result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive habitats and sensitive plant and animal species. However, compliance with the following policies from the General Plan were determined to reduce biological impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan to a less-than-significant level.
• 7.1-G-1 Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare.
• 7.1-G-2 Protect and where reasonable and feasible restore saltmarshes and wetlands.
• 7.1-I-1 Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in [General Plan EIR] Figure 7-2: Ecologically Sensitive Habitats. (see Figure 4.13-3 of the [City’s General Plan] DEIR). • 7.1-I-4 Require development on the wetlands delineated in [General Plan EIR] Figure 7-2 to complete assessments of biological resources. • 7.1-I-5 Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects.

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

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.9 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to biological resources which may result from implementation of the proposed Plan Bay Area. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed potential impacts related to special-status species under Impact 2.9-1a, and impacts to designated critical habitat for federally protected species 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 120 ends

May 2022
under Impact 2.9-1b. The forecasted development and transportation projects under the Plan would result in habitat loss and degradation. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.9-1(a) and 2.9-1(b), reproduced below, would mitigate this potential impact to less-than-significant levels. Because MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.9- 1(a,b), the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the abovereferenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, individual project’s impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant.

It should also be noted that buildout of the entire Plan Bay Area planning area encompasses a wide range of habitat types, whereas, implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantially smaller disturbance area as compared to the Plan Bay Area planning area.

As discussed in further detail below, development of the proposed project individually could result in an adverse impact to birds protected under the MBTA; however, migratory birds are not considered candidate, sensitive, or special status species, which are the subject of this question. In addition, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures II-1 and II2 would reduce potential project impacts to migratory birds to a less-than-significant level. b,c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed potential impacts related to riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities under Impact 2.9-2. As discussed therein, projected development and implementation of transportation projects have the potential to affect jurisdictional waters and other sensitive habitats. The Plan Bay Area EIR included Mitigation Measure 2.9-2 to protect wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. Because the MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.9-2, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the individual project’s impacts related to wetlands would be less than significant.

In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the project site is an infill location and does not contain any riparian habitat, protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact related to riparian habitat, other sensitive natural community, or on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). d. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the movement of migratory fish or wildlife species, use as a migratory wildlife corridor, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites under Impact 2.9-3. Projected development, including implementation of transportation projects, under the Plan Bay Area have the potential to affect wildlife corridors and nursery sites. The Plan Bay Area EIR proposed Mitigation Measure 2.9-3, which would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Because MTC/ABAG does not have regulatory authority to impose certain mitigation measures, such as Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.9-3, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the program-level review. However, to the extent that the lead agencies having such authority require individual projects to adopt and implement the above-referenced Plan Bay Area EIR mitigation, the individual project’s impacts related to wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 121 ends

May 2022
In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the project site is an infill location and would not provide a wildlife corridor, would not be used by migratory wildlife species, and would not be considered suitable habitat for a wildlife nursery. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to interference with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of wildlife nursery sites. e,f. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed impacts related to conflicts with adopted local conservation policies, such as tree protection ordinances, or resource protection and conservation plans, such as a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other local, regional, or State HCP, under Impact 2.9-4. As noted therein, the Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
The biological mitigation measures set forth in the Plan Bay Area EIR pertain specifically to sites that include sensitive habitats. The project site has no such sensitive habitat and, thus, the mitigation measures would not apply.

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. The project site consists of an existing commercial structure, and is covered with impervious surfaces. The site is primarily surrounded by existing development. Existing vegetation on or in the vicinity of the project site consists of non-native trees, typical commercial landscaping, and areas of grass lawn. The existing vegetation provides little habitat for wildlife species. In addition, pursuant to General Plan EIR Figure 4.13-3, Ecologically Sensitive Lands, the project site does not contain any ecologically sensitive habitat, including Wetland, Habitat Conservation Area, or Marine Aquatic Habitat.

However, the existing trees could be considered potential habitat for special-status birds.

Birds protected under the MBTA are known to use shrubbery, trees, and sometimes urban buildings to nest. As noted above, under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. While unlikely, if a bird protected under the MBTA is nesting within onsite trees, then removal of the trees would cause an adverse impact.

Based on the above, development of the project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the project could have a potentially significant impact to protected species. However, implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measures II-1 and II-2, which would be required by the City as a condition of approval for the proposed project, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
b,c. The project site consists of an existing commercial structure and paved areas. As discussed above, the existing vegetation on or in the vicinity of the project site predominantly consists of non-native trees and commercial landscaping. Water features are not present on the project site. Accordingly, riparian habitat, wetlands, or any other sensitive natural community do not exist on the project site. As a result, implementation of 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 122 ends

May 2022
the proposed project would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including wetlands.
d. Because the site is built out with urban uses and surrounded by existing development, the project site would not provide a wildlife corridor, would not be used by migratory wildlife species, and would not be considered suitable habitat for a wildlife nursery. The project site does not contain streams or other waterways that could be used by migratory fish or as a wildlife corridor for other wildlife species. In addition, pursuant to Figure 2.9-9, of the Plan Bay Area EIR, the project site is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area, defined as lands important to wildlife movement. As such, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. Two trees currently exist on-site: a Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia) and Bailey acacia (Acacia baileyana). As part of the proposed project, both on-site trees would be removed. To assess the health and structural condition of the trees within the project site, an Arborist Report was prepared for the proposed project by Traverso Tree Service, Inc. (see Appendix C).
35 The tree assessment took place March 4, 2021.

The City of South San Francisco protects certain tree species, such as oaks, 10 inches and greater in trunk diameter, most tree species 15 inches and greater in diameter, and certain tree species, such as blackwood acacia, 24 inches and greater in trunk diameter (see Municipal Code Section 13.30, Tree Preservation). Based on the City’s definition for protected trees, neither tree qualifies for protected status. One of the trees is located within the proposed building footprint, and the other tree was determined to be in poor health.

Both trees are recommended for removal. However, the Landscaping Plan (see Figure 7 and Figure 8) includes several new trees along the site frontages and throughout the interior courtyard, and would effectively replace the removed trees and contribute additional trees as compared to existing conditions.

Based on the above, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
f. The project site is not located within an area that is subject to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to a conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

II-1 The project applicant shall ensure that a qualified biologist conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds within a 250-foot buffer around the project site boundaries, if feasible, not more than 14 days prior to site disturbance during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st). If site disturbance commences outside the breeding season, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds is not 35 Traverso Tree Service, Inc. Arborist Report for 40 Airport Blvd, South San Francisco. March 25, 2021. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 123 ends

May 2022
required. The project applicant shall submit survey results to the City’s Planning Division prior to initiation of any ground disturbance. If active nests of migratory birds are not detected within approximately 250 feet of the project site, further mitigation is not required.

II-2 If nesting raptors or other migratory birds are detected on or adjacent to the site during the survey, the project applicant shall be responsible for establishing an appropriate construction-free buffer around all active nests. Actual size of buffer would be determined by the project biologist, and would depend on species, topography, and type of activity that would occur in the vicinity of the nest. Typical buffers are 25 feet for non-raptors and up to 250 feet for raptors. The project buffer shall be monitored periodically by the project biologist to ensure compliance. The project applicant shall ensure that these buffer distances and monitoring requirements are met. After the nesting is completed, as determined by the biologist, the buffer would no longer be required. The project applicant shall also ensure that these buffers remain in place for the duration of the breeding season or until a qualified biologist has confirmed that all chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents.

Findings
The project site has been previously developed for commercial land use and is primarily covered by structures and pavement. Because the project site is predominantly urbanized, the site has low habitat value, and low potential for the presence of special-status species. However, certain birds protected by the MBTA may nest within onsite trees, and a potentially significant impact could occur. Project-specific Mitigation Measures II-1 and II-2 require preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and the establishment of appropriate buffers, which would reduce impacts to a lessthan-significant level. As such, the proposed project would not result in additional significant environmental effects related to Biological Resources.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 124 ends

May 2022
III. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.    
Environmental Setting
The City of South San Francisco has a Historic Preservation Program, which tasks the Historic Preservation Commission with identifying the City’s most important historic sites and protecting them accordingly. The Historic Preservation Program currently includes 50 designated historic sites, each identified for its historical or cultural significance.36 The project site is located within an urban area and, therefore, existing development surrounds the project site, including roadways and commercial development. The existing warehouse building makes up a total of approximately 35,000 sf, and the remainder of the site area consists of paved parking lots. According to the Phase I ESA, the site was developed with the existing structure by 1956.37 The existing warehouse has not been designated as a historic resource. Due to the developed nature of the site, the project site has already been highly disturbed.

Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to the disturbance of cultural resources in Chapter

4.14. a,b. Impacts 4.14-a and 4.14-b include a discussion regarding how future development throughout the City may adversely affect historic resources or disrupt an archeological site or property with cultural significance. As noted therein, the Historic Preservation Commission protects historical structures throughout the City, and the City’s Municipal Code further protects historic buildings from damage or demolition. Due to the City’s location, subsurface prehistoric and archeological resources may be present. However, the General Plan EIR notes that archeological surveys and records reviews would allow for the appropriate handling and/or avoidance of such resources. The following policies are included in the General Plan to address potential impacts related to historical and archeological resources:
• 7.5-G-1: Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identity and quality of life.
• 7.5-G-2: Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. • 7.5-I-4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the City by requiring a records review for any development proposed areas of known resources. 36 City of South San Francisco. Historic Preservation. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economiccommunity-development/planning-division/historic-preservation. Accessed April 2021. 37 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 125 ends

May 2022
• 7.5-I-5: In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered.

Overall, the General Plan EIR concluded that, with implementation of the policies included in the General Plan, buildout of the General Plan would have a less-than-significant effect on historic and archeological resources.
c. The General Plan EIR does not explicitly discuss impacts related to the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

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

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Chapter 2.11 of the Plan Bay Area EIR evaluated potential impacts to cultural, historical, and archaeological resources that may result from implementation of the Plan. Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. a,b. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or unique archeological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 (Impact 2.11-1 and 2.11-2) and determined that, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 2.11-1 and 2.11-2, the impact would be less than significant.
c. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed the potential impact related to the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, under Impact 2.11-4. The Plan Bay Area EIR concluded that compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California PRC Section 5097 would ensure that any potential impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the Plan Bay Area EIR that Apply to the Proposed Project
Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measures 2.11-1 and 2.11-2 are applicable to the proposed project.

Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 has already been implemented.

2.11-1 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• Realign or redesign projects to avoid impacts on known historic resources where possible.
• Require a survey and evaluation of structures greater than 45 years in age within the area of potential effect to determine their eligibility for recognition under State, federal, or local historic preservation criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared by an architectural historian, or historical architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards. The evaluation should comply with CEQA Guidelines section 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 126 ends

May 2022
15064.5(b), and, if federal funding or permits are required, with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.). Study recommendations shall be implemented.
• If avoidance of a significant architectural/built environment resource is not feasible, additional mitigation options include, but are not limited to, specific design plans for historic districts, or plans for alteration or adaptive re-use of a historical resource that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. • Comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect historic resources.

2.11-2 Implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement the following measures where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to:
• Before construction activities, project sponsors shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a record search at the appropriate Information Center to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed and whether resources were identified. When recommended by the Information Center, project sponsors shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct archaeological surveys before construction activities. Project sponsors shall follow recommendations identified in the survey, which may include activities such as subsurface testing, designing and implementing a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist, avoidance of sites, or preservation in place. • In the event that evidence of any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits are discovered during constructionrelated earth-moving activities (e.g., ceramic shard, trash scatters, lithic scatters), all ground-disturbing activity in the area of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the appropriate Native American group shall be notified. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed. If the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, a data recovery plan shall be prepared. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the project applicant to avoid disturbance to the resources, and if complete avoidance is not feasible in light of project design, economics, logistics, and other factors, follow accepted professional standards in recording any find including submittal of the standard DPR Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) and location information to the appropriate California Historical Resources Information System office for the project area.
• Project sponsors shall comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect archaeological resources.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 127 ends

May 2022
Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a. According to the South San Francisco Historic Preservation Program’s map of Historic Resources, identified historic resources do not exist on or within the vicinity of the project site.38 In addition, Figure 4.14-1, Designated Historic Resources, of the General Plan EIR, does not identify any protected historic resources on the project site.39 Resources over 50 years of age may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The existing on-site commercial building was constructed circa 195040 and, therefore, could be considered a historic building because the building is over 50 years in age. Tenants on the subject property have included a steel machine shop (1950-1970), Tire Jobbers (1970), Bay Carbon Company (1977-1995), Ogden Allied Services Corp. (1987-1995), Sky Chefs (2000-2005), Quong Hop (2005), J.R. Produce (2005), Capital Sigma Investments (2010), and The Produce and United Property (2015- Present).

In 2019, as part of its General Plan Update, the City published a Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report. According to the report, approximately 250 eligible historic architectural resources were identified within the City, the majority of which are not included within the City’s register, but were determined to be eligible through environmental reviews. Details on these properties are listed in Table CUL-5 of the Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report, and include residential homes, commercial buildings, medical facilities, fraternal organizations, civic, educational, religious, and transportation infrastructure. Evaluated resources determined to be ineligible for listing have been excluded from Table CUL-5. The project site is not included in Table CUL-5 and, thus, has not been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).

In summary, the on-site structure is over 50 years old and, thus, must be evaluated for historical significance in order to comply with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-

1. Consistent with Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1, the Cultural and Historic Resources Existing Conditions Report evaluated structures throughout the City for historical significance, and did not identify the on-site structure as a historically significant resource. Thus, the proposed project would comply with the first item in Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1, wherein the project would avoid impacts to identified historic resources. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-1 has been fully implemented.

Based on the above, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b,c. Considering that the project site has previously been heavily disturbed through development of the existing structures, the potential for encountering any significant cultural or archaeological resources or human remains during the on-site improvements associated with the project is relatively low. Although low, the potential does exist for 38 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Program. South San Francisco Historic Sites. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1800. Accessed July 10, 2020. 39 South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 1999. 40 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Produce Company 40-60 Airport Boulevard. December 20, 2017.
40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 128 ends

May 2022
previously unknown or unidentified cultural resources or human remains to be encountered below the surface that could be inadvertently damaged or lost during grading and construction of the project. However, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2 provides standardized protocol for the accidental discovery of cultural resources, and would be applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2 would reduce impacts related to the discovery of unknown archeological resources to a less-than-significant level.

The project would also be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052, which address appropriate handling of human remains, and California PRC Section 5097, which addresses appropriate protection of archeological and historical sites. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that a less-thansignificant impact related to archaeological resources and/or human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, would occur.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None.

Findings
Considering that the project site has been previously developed, the likelihood of discovering previously unknown historic or archeological resources is low. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of California law, including California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California PRC Section 5097. Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2, listed above, would reduce potential impacts related to archeological resources to a less-than-significant level. As such, Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure 2.11-2 is hereby incorporated requirements of the proposed project. Implementation of the aforementioned Plan Bay Area EIR Mitigation Measure would ensure that the project would not result in any additional environmental effects related to Cultural Resources. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 129 ends

May 2022
IV. ENERGY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
   
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?    
Environmental Setting
The project site is currently developed with a two-story commercial warehouse building and associated parking areas. Electricity and natural gas are currently provided to the project site by PG&E. South San Francisco also has partnered with Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), a Community Choice Aggregation, which allows the purchase of electricity from renewable sources through PG&E infrastructure.41 Therefore, the project applicant would have convenient access to renewably sourced electricity to meet the demands of the proposed project.

A description of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, with which the proposed project would be required to comply, are provided below.

California Green Building Standards Code
The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the CBSC, which became effective with the rest of the CBSC on January 1, 2020. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures; • Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates;
• Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ MWELO to reduce outdoor water use;
• Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; • Mandatory periodic inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 sf to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies; and • Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board.
41 City of South San Francisco. Community Choice Energy. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/citymanager/sustainability/community-choice-energy#:~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20has%20joinedinstea d%20of%20going%20through%20PG%26E. Accessed June 10, 2020. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 130 ends

May 2022
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy-efficiency measures from the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards; they went into effect starting January 1, 2020. The 2019 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements beyond the current 2016 standards. Residential buildings built in compliance with the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately seven percent less energy compared to the 2016 standards, primarily due to lighting upgrades.42 Summary of Analysis under the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR does not include a discussion regarding energy efficiency or renewable energy goals.

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

Summary of Analysis under the Plan Bay Area EIR
Impacts related to energy are discussed in Chapter 2.4 of the Plan Bay Area EIR. a. The Plan Bay Area EIR analyzed whether implementation of the plan would result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy in Impact 2.4-1. As noted therein, per capita energy consumption associated with the proposed Plan would be lower per capita when compared to buildout without adoption of the Plan due to the increased energy efficiency of the multi-family housing encouraged as part of the Plan. In addition, because the Plan Bay Area would result in denser land development and a net reduction in personal vehicle use, the project would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. b. As discussed in Plan Bay Area EIR Impact 2.4-2, future land use projects under the Plan Bay Area would be more dense and more energy efficient, and would be required to comply with the most up-to-date edition of the Title 24 Standards. In addition, PG&E’s compliance with the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investorowned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent by 2030, would ensure that electricity demand by developments under the Plan Bay Area would be met by increasingly more renewable sources. As such, the Plan Bay Area EIR concludes that impacts related to renewable energy use and energy efficiency would be less than significant.

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

Project-Specific Impact Discussion
a,b. Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to the use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and material delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas 42 California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ. November 2018. 40 Airport Blvd Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Initial Study

Page 131 ends

South San Francisco City CouncilJuly 27, 2022

South San Francisco City Council
July 27, 2022