San Mateo Union High School District Stadium Improvement Project

San Mateo Union High School District SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

SCH#: 2016022051

May 2016

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project

Draft Environmental Impact Report

Prepared by:

San Mateo Union High School District 650 North Delaware Street San Mateo, California 94401 Contact: Elizabeth McManus, Deputy Superintendent (650) 558-2203

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612

May 2016

This report is printed on 50% recycled paper. SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Table of Contents

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project

Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ...... ES-1

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ...... 1-2 1.3 Scope and Content ...... 1-2 1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ...... 1-3 1.5 Environmental Review Process ...... 1-3

2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Applicant ...... 2-1 2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person ...... 2-1 2.3 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.4 Existing Site Characteristics ...... 2-8 2.5 Project Characteristics ...... 2-10 2.6 Project Objectives ...... 2-20 2.7 Required Approvals ...... 2-21

3.0 Environmental Setting 3.1 Regional Setting ...... 3-1 3.2 Project Site Setting ...... 3-1 3.3 Cumulative Projects Setting ...... 3-3

4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ...... 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics ...... 4.1-1 4.2 Air Quality ...... 4.2-1 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4.3-1 4.4 Noise ...... 4.4-1 4.5 Transportation and Traffic ...... 4.5-1

5.0 Other CEQA Required Discussions 5.1 Growth-Inducing Effects ...... 5-1 5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Effects ...... 5-1 5.3 Energy Effects ...... 5-2

San Mateo Union High School District i SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Table of Contents

6.0 Alternatives 6.1 Alternatives Considered But Rejected as Infeasible ...... 6-2 6.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative ...... 6-3 6.3 Alternative 2: Reduced Project ...... 6-4 6.4 Alternative 3: Trip Reduction Program ...... 6-6 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...... 6-8

7.0 References and Report Preparers 7.1 References ...... 7-1 7.2 Report Preparers ...... 7-5

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process ...... 1-5 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ...... 2-2 Figure 2-2a Aragon High School Site Location ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2b Capuchino High School Site Location ...... 2-4 Figure 2-2c Hillsdale High School Site Location ...... 2-5 Figure 2-2d Mills High School Site Location ...... 2-6 Figure 2-2e San Mateo High School Site Location ...... 2-7 Figure 2-3a Aragon High School Light Pole Locations ...... 2-12 Figure 2-3b Capuchino High School Light Pole Locations ...... 2-13 Figure 2-3c Hillsdale High School Light Pole Locations ...... 2-14 Figure 2-3d Mills High School Light Pole Locations ...... 2-15 Figure 2-3e San Mateo High School Light Pole Locations ...... 2-16 Figure 2-4 Lighting Pole Details ...... 2-17 Figure 4.1-1 Views of Aragon High School ...... 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-2 Views of Capuchino High School ...... 4.1-4 Figure 4.1-3 Views of Hillsdale High School ...... 4.1-5 Figure 4.1-4 Views of Mills High School ...... 4.1-6 Figure 4.1-5 Views of San Mateo High School ...... 4.1-8 Figure 4.4-1 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-A ...... 4.4-4 Figure 4.4-2 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results Location LT-2-A ...... 4.4-4 Figure 4.4-3 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-C ...... 4.4-5 Figure 4.4-4 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results Location, LT-1-H ...... 4.4-6 Figure 4.4-5 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-2-H ...... 4.4-7 Figure 4.4-6 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-M ...... 4.4-8 Figure 4.4-7 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-SM ...... 4.4-9 Figure 4.4-8 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Aragon High School ...... 4.4-27 Figure 4.4-9 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Capuchino High School ...... 4.4-28 Figure 4.4-10 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Hillsdale High School ...... 4.4-29 Figure 4.4-11 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Mills High School ... 4.4-30 Figure 4.4-12 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) San Mateo High School ...... 4.4-31 Figure 4.5-1 Capuchino High School Lane Configuration ...... 4.5-4

San Mateo Union High School District ii SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Table of Contents

Figure 4.5-2 Mills High School Lane Configuration ...... 4.5-5 Figure 4.5-3 San Mateo High School Lane Configuration ...... 4.5-7 Figure 4.5-4 Aragon High School Lane Configuration ...... 4.5-8 Figure 4.5-5 Hillsdale High School Lane Configuration ...... 4.5-10 Figure 4.5-6a Study Area Transit Service Map (North) ...... 4.5-13 Figure 4.5-6b Study Area Transit Service Map (South) ...... 4.5-14 Figure 4.5-7 Capuchino High School Study Area ...... 4.5-23 Figure 4.5-8 Capuchino High School Project Volumes ...... 4.5-24 Figure 4.5-9 Mills High School Study Area ...... 4.5-25 Figure 4.5-10 Mills High School Project Volumes ...... 4.5-26 Figure 4.5-11 San Mateo High School Study Area ...... 4.5-27 Figure 4.5-12 San Mateo High School Study Area ...... 4.5-28 Figure 4.5-13 San Mateo High School Project Volumes ...... 4.5-30 Figure 4.5-14 Aragon High School Study Area ...... 4.5-31 Figure 4.5-15 Aragon High School Project Volumes ...... 4.5-32 Figure 4.5-16 Hillsdale High School Study Area ...... 4.5-33 Figure 4.5-17 Hillsdale High School Project Volumes ...... 4.5-37 Figure 4.5-18 Capuchino High School Existing Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-38 Figure 4.5-19 Mills High School Existing Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-39 Figure 4.5-20 San Mateo High School Existing Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-40 Figure 4.5-21 Aragon High School Existing Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-41 Figure 4.5-22 Hillsdale High School Existing Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-42 Figure 4.5-23 Capuchino High School Background Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-49 Figure 4.5-24 Mills High School Background Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-50 Figure 4.5-25 San Mateo High School Background Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-51 Figure 4.5-26 Aragon High School Background Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-52 Figure 4.5-27 Hillsdale High School Background Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-53 Figure 4.5-28 Capuchino High School Cumulative Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-62 Figure 4.5-29 Mills High School Cumulative Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-63 Figure 4.5-30 San Mateo High School Cumulative Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-64 Figure 4.5-31 Aragon High School Cumulative Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-65 Figure 4.5-32 Hillsdale High School Cumulative Plus Project Volumes ...... 4.5-66

List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ...... ES-3 Table 1-1 Scoping Comments Received ...... 1-1 Table 2-1 Proposed Schedule of Events ...... 2-18 Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects ...... 3-4 Table 3-2 Approximate Study Area Cumulative Developments by Land Use ...... 3-4 Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Stadium Lighting Systems ...... 4.1-16 Table 4.1-2 Illuminance from Common Light Sources ...... 4.1-17 Table 4.1-3 Estimated Illuminance at Stadium Sites ...... 4.1-18 Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards & Basin Attainment Status ...... 4.2-4 Table 4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Data ...... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3 Estimated Construction Daily Air Pollutant Emissions ...... 4.2-10

San Mateo Union High School District iii SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Table of Contents

Table 4.2-4 Estimated Construction Daily Air Pollutant Emissions for Two Campuses Constructed Simultaneously ...... 4.2-10 Table 4.2-5 Estimated Project Operational Emissions ...... 4.2-11 Table 4.3-1 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ...... 4.3-12 Table 4.3-2 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (2018) ...... 4.3-13 Table 4.3-3 Project Consistency San Mateo County’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) ...... 4.3-14 Table 4.4-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels ...... 4.4-1 Table 4.4-2 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Aragon High School ...... 4.4-3 Table 4.4-3 School Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Capuchino High School ...... 4.4-5 Table 4.4-4 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Hillsdale High School ...... 4.4-6 Table 4.4-5 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Mills High School ...... 4.4-7 Table 4.4-6 San Mateo High School Noise Measurement Results ...... 4.4-9 Table 4.4-7 Field Use Assumptions ...... 4.4-17 Table 4.4-8 Noise Levels Associated with Existing Traffic on Area Roadways ...... 4.4-18 Table 4.4-9 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure ...... 4.4-21 Table 4.4-10 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...... 4.4-22 Table 4.4-11 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities Aragon High School ...... 4.4-24 Table 4.4-12 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities Capuchino High School ...... 4.4-24 Table 4.4-13 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities Hillsdale High School ...... 4.4-25 Table 4.4-14 Increase in Leq Due to Evening Field Activities Mills High School ...... 4.4-25 Table 4.4-15 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities San Mateo High School ...... 4.4-26 Table 4.4-16 Comparison of Noise Levels from Existing and Proposed PA Systems Aragon High School ...... 4.4-27 Table 4.4-17 Comparison of Noise Levels from Existing and Proposed PA Systems Hillsdale High School ...... 4.4-28 Table 4.4-18 Comparison of Noise Levels from Existing and Proposed PA Systems San Mateo High School ...... 4.4-30 Table 4.4-19 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Aragon High School ...... 4.4-32 Table 4.4-20 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Capuchino High School ...... 4.4-32 Table 4.4-21 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Hillsdale High School ...... 4.4-33 Table 4.4-22 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Mills High School ...... 4.4-34 Table 4.4-23 Increase in CNEL on a Varsity Game Day San Mateo High School ...... 4.4-34 Table 4.4-24 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Aragon High School ...... 4.4-35 Table 4.4-25 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Capuchino High School...... 4.4-35 Table 4.4-26 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Hillsdale High School ...... 4.4-36 Table 4.4-27 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Mills High School ...... 4.4-36 Table 4.4-28 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities San Mateo High School ...... 4.4-36 Table 4.4-29 Noise Levels Associated with Existing Plus Project Traffic on Area Roadways ...... 4.4-37

San Mateo Union High School District iv SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Table of Contents

Table 4.4-30 Noise Levels Associated with Cumulative Plus Project Traffic on Area Roadways...... 4.4-39 Table 4.5-1 Existing Conditions Parking Analysis ...... 4.5-12 Table 4.5-2 LOS Thresholds and Definitions ...... 4.5-15 Table 4.5-3 Existing Intersection Level of Service 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM ...... 4.5-16 Table 4.5-4 Existing Intersection Level of Service 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM ...... 4.5-17 Table 4.5-5 LOS Standards by Jurisdiction ...... 4.5-19 Table 4.5-6 Trip Generation Estimates by Campus ...... 4.5-20 Table 4.5-7 Calculation of Trip Generation Rate for SMHUSD ...... 4.5-21 Table 4.5-8 Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM ...... 4.5-35 Table 4.5-9 Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM ...... 4.5-43 Table 4.5-10 Background Plus Project Intersection LOS 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM ...... 4.5-47 Table 4.5-11 Background Plus Project Intersection LOS 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM ...... 4.5-55 Table 4.5-12 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM ...... 4.5-57 Table 4.5-13 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM ...... 4.5-59 Table 6-1 Summary Comparison of Proposed Project Alternatives ...... 6-9

Appendices Appendix A Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and Responses to the Notice of Preparation Appendix B Project Site Photometrics Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix D Crowd and PA Noise Impact Assessment Appendix E Traffic Noise Model Results Appendix F Transportation Impact Analysis

San Mateo Union High School District v SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District vi SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and the project alternatives, the environmental impacts associated with the project and alternatives, and required and recommended mitigation measures.

PROJECT SYNOPSIS

Lead Agency/Project Applicant

San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) 650 North Delaware Street, Building 3 San Mateo, California 94401

Contact Person

Elizabeth McManus, Deputy Superintendent (650) 558-2203

Project Description

A detailed description of the proposed project is included in Section 2.0, Project Description. The key characteristics of the proposed project are summarized below.

Project Characteristics

The SMUHSD includes six comprehensive high schools that educate approximately 8,200 students, one Middle College program in conjunction with the College of San Mateo, and one continuation school. Of the six comprehensive high schools, only one (Burlingame High School) has permanent stadium lighting. The remaining five comprehensive high schools (Aragon, Capuchino, Hillsdale, Mills, and San Mateo High Schools) occasionally use portable lighting systems that are powered by diesel generators to provide stadium lighting for nighttime athletic contests. The portable lights do not light the field efficiently or precisely, and the diesel generators produce noise and air pollution. With the exception of the lighting at Burlingame High School, SMUHSD is the only district in the Peninsula Athletic League that does not have permanent stadium lighting.

The District proposes to install permanent stadium lighting that would consist of a modern LED lighting system that would minimize the glare of the stadium lights and reduce the amount of illumination outside of the stadium fields compared to older lighting systems. Manufacturers have achieved substantial improvements in directional lighting systems over the past several decades and the amount of fugitive light and glare from modern systems is substantially less than that from the portable lighting systems that are currently used at several SMUHSD high schools. Also, LED lights are more energy efficient and would provide stadium lighting at a lower energy cost per lumen than the current portable lighting system.

San Mateo Union High School District ES-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Project Objectives

The objectives of the proposed project are to:

• Extend play time on the fields and expand student participation in athletic programs. • Achieve parity with the Peninsula Athletic League by providing permanent stadium lighting to allow for the hosting of evening athletic contests. • Provide extended availability of the athletic fields to improve student academic performance by minimizing early class dismissal for student athletes. • Increase the evening availability of the stadiums for sports practices and other events, which will allow student athletes to enroll in 7th period classes and allow school start times to align with the best practices set by the Board of Pediatrics Physicians. • Allow for the scheduling of games at times when students, parents, and community members can more easily attend the events. • Improve the District’s ability to serve the community by providing the opportunity for expanded community use of the stadium, including early morning track use and evening community sports league use. • Provide energy efficient, focused lighting with minimal glare. • Improve athlete safety by providing superior lighting conditions during evening practices and sports events. • Eliminate the diesel generators, thereby reducing air pollution and unnecessary noise.

ALTERNATIVES

As required by CEQA, the EIR examines a range of alternatives to the proposed project. The alternatives, described and evaluated in Section 6.0, include the following:

• Alternative 1: No Project • Alternative 2: Reduced Project • Alternative 3: Trip Reduction Program

The No Project Alternative would be the overall environmentally superior alternative, but would not achieve any of the project objectives, including extended field availability, athlete safety, and the elimination of on-field diesel generators. The Reduced Project Alternative would involve the installation of stadium lighting at only two of the five high schools associated with this project: Aragon High School and Mills High School. Installation of stadium lighting and PA systems would not occur at San Mateo High School, Capuchino High School, or Hillsdale High School. These schools would continue to use portable diesel-powered lighting for nighttime events and practices. This alternative would meet all of the objectives of the proposed project, but only at two out of the five comprehensive high schools within the District. Traffic associated with nighttime game attendance at three of the five high schools would be eliminated, as would the significant traffic impacts for the project as a whole. The same as under the Proposed Project, the San Mateo Union High School District ES-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Trip Reduction Program Alternative would involve the installation of stadium lighting and PA systems at five comprehensive high schools within the District. This alternative would also involve development of a trip reduction program for events held at San Mateo, Hillsdale, or Capuchino high schools. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the stadiums at these schools during evening events. The trip reduction program may include: a shuttle from a nearby parking area to the school or incentives for carpooling to the events. The reduction in the number of trips to and from the stadiums would lead to a proportional reduction in air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, traffic noise, and traffic congestion. However, traffic impacts likely would remain significant under this alternative.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Table ES-1 summarizes the identified environmental impacts for each issue area studied in the EIR and Initial Study, recommended mitigation measures (if any), and the level of significance after mitigation. Class I impacts are defined as significant, unavoidable adverse impacts which require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued per CEQA Guidelines §15093 if the proposed project is approved. Class II impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Class III impacts are considered less than significant impacts. Class IV impacts are those for which the project's impact would be beneficial.

It should be noted that the significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts for noise and traffic that are listed below would occur approximately 10 or fewer times per year. Nonetheless, this analysis determined that those impacts would be significant and unavoidable because the identified thresholds for those issue areas do not account for the frequency of adverse effects.

Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Significance After Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation AESTHETICS Impact AES-1 The addition of lights None required. Less than significant without and light poles at the five stadiums mitigation. would incrementally alter views of and through each of the stadium sites. However, because light poles would not block views of scenic resources from any identified scenic view location, impacts to scenic vistas at all five sites would be less than significant. Impact AES-2 The proposed light None required. Less than significant without poles would incrementally alter mitigation. aesthetic conditions at each of the five high schools. However, light poles would not conflict with the visual character of the stadiums and would have a negligible effect on the overall visual character and quality of the five schools. Impacts would be less than significant for each of the five stadium sites. San Mateo Union High School District ES-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Significance After Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact AES-3 The proposed project None required. Less than significant without would replace existing portable lighting mitigation. used for evening football games at the five school sites with new permanent stadium lighting used for sporting events and practices that would be used substantially more frequently than the portable lights. However, new sources of light at each stadium would be focused on the athletic field and would not result in light trespass exceeding IESNA standards for illuminance in residential areas. Illuminance during sporting events is estimated at approximately 0.0 horizontal and vertical foot-candles at neighboring residences, which would not substantially contribute to light levels. Therefore, lighting impacts around all stadium sites would be less than significant. Impact AES-4 Although the proposed None required. Less than significant without stadium lights would be visible from mitigation. nearby residences, they would not generate light intensity in excess of the CIE’s international standards for the E3 lighting zone at residential property lines facing the stadiums. Therefore, impacts from glare would be less than significant. Impact AES-5 The proposed stadium None required. Less than significant without lights would be shielded and designed mitigation. to reduce light trespass beyond the school sites. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase sky glow. Impacts from sky glow would be less than significant. AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1 Project construction None required. Less than significant without would generate temporary increases in mitigation. localized air pollutant emissions. These emissions would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-2 The project would result None required. Less than significant without in an increase in operational air mitigation. pollutant emissions from development of stadium lighting at five SMUHSD high schools. However, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for any pollutant and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

San Mateo Union High School District ES-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Significance After Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES The likelihood of encountering a Mitigation Measure CR-2 would be Potentially significant unless previously undiscovered archaeological required for project activities at San mitigation incorporated. or paleontological resource, unique Mateo High School only. The remaining geologic feature, or human remains three mitigation measures would be during the installation of a new pole required for all project work. foundation or electrical conduit generally is low for the majority of the CR-1 Cultural Resources Awareness project sites. However, the likelihood of Training. Prior to the commencement of encountering a buried cultural resource ground disturbance, including excavation at San Mateo High School is high, even and trenching, the construction contractor with shallow excavation. The following will ensure that all construction workers measures are required in the case of are trained to recognize archaeological unanticipated discoveries. Impacts resources (e.g., obsidian and chert flakes would be Class II, significant but and chipped stone tools; grinding and mitigable. (See Initial Study, Appendix mashing implements such as slabs and A) handstones, and mortars and pestles; bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire affected stones; fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits). The cultural resources awareness training shall be conducted by a qualified professional archaeologist with experience in training non-specialists. A record of completion of cultural resources awareness training for all construction workers shall be submitted to the District prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, and a copy of the training completion record shall be maintained onsite for the duration of construction activities.

CR-2 Archaeological Monitoring. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct monitoring of all project-related ground disturbing activities at the San Mateo High School project site. Monitoring of ground disturbing activities will continue until excavation and trenching are complete or until a soil change to a culturally sterile formation is achieved. Determination of these conditions shall be at the discretion of a qualified archaeologist. Archaeological monitoring should be performed under the direction of an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (NPS 1983). The qualified archaeologist may reduce or stop monitoring dependent

San Mateo Union High School District ES-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Significance After Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation upon observed conditions. If the qualified archaeologist determines that Native American cultural resources potentially would be disturbed during proposed project activities, the qualified archaeologist shall contact an appropriate Native American representative to join the monitoring efforts, as necessary.

CR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. Evaluation of significance for the find may include the determination of whether or not the find qualifies as an archaeological site. Isolated finds do not qualify as a historic property under the NHPA or historical resources under CEQA and require no management consideration under either regulation. Should the resource(s) be determined to qualify as an archaeological site, an evaluation of eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR may be required through the development of a treatment plan including a research design and subsurface testing through the excavation of test units and shovel test pits. After effects to the find have been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. Mitigation of effects to the find may include a damage assessment of the find, archival research, and/or data recovery to remove any identified archaeological deposits, as determined by a qualified archaeologist.

CR-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities and is especially so on the San Mateo High School project site, as several burial sites have already been encountered at that school site. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Mateo County coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human

San Mateo Union High School District ES-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Significance After Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation remains, the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact GHG-1 The project would None required. Less than significant without generate GHG emissions during mitigation. construction and long-term operation. Project generated emissions would not hinder or delay achievement of state GHG reduction targets established by AB 32 and the project would be consistent with the County’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project’s impact to climate change would be less than significant. NOISE Impact N-1 Noise generated by None required. Less than significant without construction of the proposed project at mitigation. all five project sites would not exceed thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Impact N-2 Noise from proposed future None feasible. Significant and unavoidable. activities on the fields at all five project sites would exceed an hourly L50 of 60 dBA at the adjacent residential land uses. Therefore, the noise impact from project-related activities on the fields would be significant and unavoidable. Impact N-3 Noise from the proposed None required. Less than significant without future PA systems at all five project mitigation. sites would not exceed 65 dBA at the nearest property line. Therefore, the noise impact from the proposed future PA systems would be less than significant. Impact N-4 The daily CNEL at None feasible. Significant and unavoidable. sensitive receptors on a day with a proposed nighttime football game would increase by more than 3 dBA for nearby sensitive receptors at three of the five project sites. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

San Mateo Union High School District ES-7 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Significance After Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact N-5 The increase in the annual None required. Less than significant without average CNEL for nearby sensitive mitigation. receptors due to all project-related activities would be less than 3 dBA at all five project sites. This impact would be less than significant.

Impact N-6 Project-generated traffic None required. Less than significant without would incrementally increase noise mitigation. levels on area roadways. However, the change in noise from traffic generated by the proposed project would not exceed FTA noise thresholds under typical conditions. Therefore, the effect of increased traffic noise on existing uses would be less than significant. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Impact T-1 Increases in traffic under T-1(a) The District shall work with the Significant and unavoidable. Existing plus Project conditions would City of Millbrae to mitigate the potential cause operating conditions to fall below impact to the intersection of El Camino the LOS standard at the intersection of Real & Millwood Drive under the El Camino Real and Millwood Drive Existing plus Project conditions by and the intersection of North Amphlett making the stop-controlled minor street Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue up approach along Millwood Drive right- to 10 times per year. The impacts turn-only. This would shift eastbound would be significant and unavoidable at left-turning traffic further north to the El Camino Real and Millwood Drive signalized intersection of El Camino and significant but mitigable at North Real and Park Place. The District and Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar the City of Millbrae shall negotiate a Avenue. fair-share cost distribution for this traffic improvement.

T-1(b) The District shall work with the City of San Mateo to mitigate the potential impact to the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar Avenue under the Existing plus Project conditions by making the stop- controlled minor street approach along North Amphlett Boulevard right-turn- only. This would shift northbound and southbound through and left-turning traffic further west to the signalized intersection of North Humboldt Street and East Poplar Avenue. The District shall confirm that the City of San Mateo has implemented its planned Congestion Management Program at the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar prior to operation of the proposed stadium lights.

San Mateo Union High School District ES-8 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Significance After Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact T-2 Increases in traffic under T-1(a) The District shall work with the Significant and unavoidable. Background plus Project conditions City of Millbrae to mitigate the potential would cause intersection operations to impact to the intersection of El Camino fall below the LOS standard at El Real & Millwood Drive under the Camino Real and Millwood Drive up to Existing plus Project conditions by 10 times per year. This impact would making the stop-controlled minor street be significant and unavoidable. approach along Millwood Drive right- turn-only. This would shift eastbound left-turning traffic further north to the signalized intersection of El Camino Real and Park Place. The District and the City of Millbrae shall negotiate a fair-share cost distribution for this traffic improvement. Impact T-3 Increases in traffic under T-1(a) The District shall work with the Significant and unavoidable. Cumulative plus Project conditions City of Millbrae to mitigate the potential would cause the intersection of El impact to the intersection of El Camino Camino Real and Millwood Drive to fall Real & Millwood Drive under the to an unacceptable level of service, Existing plus Project conditions by and would add more than four seconds making the stop-controlled minor street of average delay to already deficient approach along Millwood Drive right- intersection operations at North turn-only. This would shift eastbound Delaware Street/East Poplar Avenue left-turning traffic further north to the and El Camino Real/West Hillsdale signalized intersection of El Camino Boulevard. These impacts would be Real and Park Place. The District and significant and unavoidable. the City of Millbrae shall negotiate a fair-share cost distribution for this traffic improvement.

San Mateo Union High School District ES-9 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Executive Summary

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District ES-10 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 1.0 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed stadium lighting project at five high schools within the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD or “the District”). This section discusses: (1) the EIR background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EIR; (3) the scope and content of the EIR; (4) lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (5) the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is described in detail in Section 2.0, Project Description.

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BACKGROUND

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report was distributed for a 30-day agency and public review period, along with an Initial Study, on February 17, 2016. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project may have significant environmental impacts and that the District would prepare an EIR to address these impacts. The District held an EIR Scoping Meeting on March 3, 2016, at the SMART Center, 789 East Poplar, San Mateo, CA 94401. No members of the public attended the Scoping Meeting. The District received five letters in response to the NOP. The letters are listed and their content summarized in Table 1-1. Issues brought up in the scoping comment letters did not identify additional issue areas requiring EIR analysis beyond those previously identified in the Initial Study. However, additional information was added to the Initial Study to address some issues discussed. The revised Initial Study, NOP, and NOP comment letters are presented in Appendix A.

Table 1-1 Scoping Comments Received Commenter Subject Response/Where Subject is Addressed in EIR California Department of Travel demand, traffic, This agency lists several considerations that should Transportation impacts on pedestrians and be included in the project traffic study. These items (Caltrans) bicyclists were considered by the traffic consultant, DKS Associates and District staff. See Section 4.5, Transportation and Traffic, of this EIR and see the traffic study in Appendix F of this EIR. Native American Potential impacts to historic Potential impacts to historic or cultural resources are Heritage Commission and cultural resources, tribal discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of the (NAHC) consultation Initial Study, Appendix A. Impacts were found to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

San Francisco Compatibility with Airport Land Information regarding compatibility with the airport International Airport Use Compatibility Plan, glare land use compatibility plan and potential glare hazards for pilots, analysis of hazards for pilots has been added to the Initial critical airspace surfaces Study, Appendix A of this EIR.

Jane Stahl Traffic regulation near Impacts related to traffic, site access, and safety are Capuchino High School, discussed in the EIR Section 4.5, Transportation entry/egress, pedestrian and Traffic and in the Initial Study, Appendix A and safety, parking the Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix F of this EIR.

Public address system noise Impacts related to PA system noise are analyzed in EIR Section 4.4, Noise.

San Mateo Union High School District 1-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 1.0 Introduction

Table 1-1 Scoping Comments Received Commenter Subject Response/Where Subject is Addressed in EIR John Shield Parking and site access at Impacts related to parking and site access are Hillsdale High School discussed in the Initial Study, Appendix A and in in the Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix F, of this EIR.

1.2 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

The proposed project requires the discretionary approval of the SMUHSD. Therefore, it is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:

...will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.

This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines:

This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.

This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and SMUHSD decision-makers. The process will culminate with a Board of Trustees hearing to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the proposed project.

1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT

This EIR addresses impacts identified by the Initial Study to be potentially significant. The following issues were found to include potentially significant impacts and have been studied in the EIR:

• Aesthetics • Air Quality • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Noise • Transportation and Traffic

Issue areas found to be less than significant and not studied in this EIR are discussed in the Initial Study in Appendix A.

In preparing the EIR, use was made of pertinent information and background documents prepared by SMUHSD. A full reference list is contained in Section 7.0, References and Report Preparers.

San Mateo Union High School District 1-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 1.0 Introduction

The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6.0) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives discussion evaluates the CEQA-required “no project” alternative and two alternative development scenarios for the site. The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. The CEQA Guidelines provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (Section 15151)

1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES

The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The SMUHSD is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. A trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for the proposed project.

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

The major steps in the environmental review process, as required under CEQA, are outlined below and illustrated on Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

1. Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (SMUHSD) must file an NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the proposed project could create significant environmental impacts.

2. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Prepared. The DEIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

3. Notice of Completion. The lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a DEIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of a DEIR. The lead agency must place the Notice in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public

San Mateo Union High School District 1-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 1.0 Introduction

Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the Notice to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of DEIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public, and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a DEIR is 30 days. When a DEIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the Clearinghouse approves a shorter period (Public Resources Code 21091).

4. Final EIR (FEIR). The FEIR must include: a) the DEIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.

5. Certification of FEIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: a) the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the FEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

6. Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may: a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

7. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

8. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.

9. Notice of Determination. The lead agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the Notice starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

San Mateo Union High School District 1-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 1.0 Introduction

District prepares Initial Study

District sends Notice of Preparation (NOP) to responsible agencies

District solicits input from Agencies & Public onthecontentoftheDraftEIR

District prepares Draft EIR

District files Notice of Completion and gives public notice of availability of Draft EIR

Public Review Period (30 day minimum) District solicits comment from Agencies & Public on the adequacy of the Draft EIR

District prepares Final EIR, including responses to comments on the Draft EIR

Responsible Agency decision-making bodies consider the Final EIR

District prepares findings on the feasibility of reducing significant environmental effects

District makes a decision on the project

District files Notice of Determination with County Clerk

Environmental Review Process Figure 1-1 San Mateo Union High School District 1-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 1.0 Introduction

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 1-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This section describes the proposed project, including the project applicant, project location, major project characteristics, project objectives, and discretionary approvals needed for project approval.

2.1 PROJECT APPLICANT

San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) 650 North Delaware Street, Building 3 San Mateo, California 94401

2.2 LEAD AGENCY AND CONTACT PERSON

San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) 650 North Delaware Street, Building 3 San Mateo, California 94401

Contact person: Elizabeth McManus, Deputy Superintendent. Phone number: (650) 558-2203.

2.3 PROJECT LOCATION

The SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project (the “project”) would improve lighting and public address systems for existing stadiums at the following five high schools within the County of San Mateo:

• Aragon High School, located at 900 Alameda de las Pulgas southeast of its intersection with Woodland Drive, in the City of San Mateo.

• Capuchino High School, located at 1501 Magnolia Boulevard southwest of its intersection with Park Boulevard, in the City of San Bruno.

• Hillsdale High School, located at 3115 Del Monte Street northeast of its intersection with West Hillsdale Boulevard, in the City of San Mateo.

• Mills High School, located at 400 Murchison Drive southwest of its intersection with Magnolia Avenue, in the City of Millbrae.

• San Mateo High School, located at 506 North Delaware Street northeast of its intersection with East Poplar Avenue, in the City of San Mateo.

Figure 2-1 shows each project site’s regional location and Figures 2-2a through 2-2e show the locations of the five SMUHSD schools that would receive stadium improvements.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Capuchino High School

Mills High School

San Mateo High School

Aragon High School

Hillsdale High School

0 1 2

Miles

^_ Project Locations ^_

Regional Location Figure 2-1 San Mateo Union High School District 2-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Alameda de las Pulgas

Woodland Drive

Hobart Avenue

High School Campus ^_ Stadium

Aragon High School Site Location Figure 2-2a San Mateo Union High School District 2-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Magnolia Avenue

Park Boulevard

Barcelona Drive Millwood Drive

High School Campus ^_ Stadium

Capuchino High School Site Location Figure 2-2b San Mateo Union High School District 2-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Alameda de las Pulgas

31st Avenue ^_

Del Monte Street

West Hillsdale Boulevard

High School Campus ^_ Stadium

Hillsdale High School Site Location Figure 2-2c San Mateo Union High School District 2-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

South Magnolia Avenue

Millbrae Avenue

Sequoia Avenue

Murchison Drive

High School Campus ^_ Stadium

Mills High School Site Location Figure 2-2d San Mateo Union High School District 2-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

North Humboldt Street

North Delaware Street

East Poplar Avenue

High School Campus, San Mateo Adult Resources Technology (SMART) Center, District Offices ^_ Stadium

San Mateo High School Site Location Figure 2-2e San Mateo Union High School District 2-7 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

2.4 EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.4.1 Current Land Uses and Designations

All five of the project sites are existing stadiums that are located on existing high school campuses. For Aragon, Hillsdale, and San Mateo High Schools, the City of San Mateo General Plan Land Use designation is “Public Facility.” For Capuchino High School, the City of San Bruno General Plan Land Use designation is “Low Density Residential.” For Mills High School, the City of Millbrae General Plan Land Use designation is “Utilities & Public Facilities.” Aragon and Hillsdale High Schools are zoned as R1-B, One Family Dwellings “B.” Capuchino and Mills High Schools are zoned as R-1, Single Family Residential. San Mateo High School is zoned partially as R1-C, One Family Dwellings “C,” and partially as R2, Two Family Dwellings.1

Per Government Code Section 53094, the SMUHSD (or “the District”) governing board adopted Resolution 15-16 on October 22, 2015 exempting the proposed project from compliance with local zoning ordinances. Information about zoning ordinances and General Plan goals and policies is presented in the regulatory setting of each resource section for informational purposes. In some cases, the District chose to use a local zoning or General Plan threshold as the CEQA threshold for this analysis. However, the District maintains discretionary approval authority for the project and would not require local permits for project implementation.

2.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses

This section describes the surrounding land uses and development for each of the five project sites.

a. Aragon High School

Aragon High School is located at 900 Alameda de las Pulgas in the City of San Mateo. As shown on Figure 2a, the stadium is located on the northeast portion of the school property. Alameda de las Pulgas borders the school on the northeast. Woodland Drive curves around the school property forming the northwest and southwest borders. Hobart Avenue borders the school on the southeast. State Route 92 is located approximately 0.2 mile to the southeast. State Route 82 (El Camino Real) is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single-family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 130 feet northeast of the edge of the stadium. The only adjacent non-residential land use is Baywood Elementary School, which is located to the northwest across Woodland Drive.

b. Capuchino High School

Capuchino High School is located at 1501 Magnolia Boulevard in the City of San Bruno. As shown on Figure 2b, the stadium is located on the southwest portion of the school property. Magnolia Boulevard borders the school on the northeast. Park Boulevard runs along the northwest boundary of the school. Barcelona Drive forms the southwestern boundary, and Millwood Drive borders the school on the southeast. State Route 82 is located approximately 0.1 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single-family residences. A

1 The zoning designations R1-B and R1-C represent different lot and development standards for single-family residences.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-8 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

few multi-family residences border the school to the east. The nearest residence is located approximately 170 feet south of the edge of the stadium. Green Hills Country Club is located approximately 250 feet to the south of the school property boundary. San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northeast, across U.S. Highway 101.

c. Hillsdale High School

Hillsdale High School is located at 3115 Del Monte Street in the City of San Mateo. As shown on Figure 2c, the stadium is located on the northeast portion of the school property. The school is bordered by 31st Avenue on the northwest, Alameda de las Pulgas on the northeast, West Hillsdale Boulevard on the southeast, and Del Monte Street on the southwest. State Route 82 is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded entirely by single- family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Abbott Middle School is located approximately 400 feet to the southeast, across West Hillsdale Boulevard.

d. Mills High School

Mills High School is located at 400 Murchison Drive in the City of Millbrae. As shown on Figure 2d, the stadium is located on the northwest portion of the school property. The school is bordered by Millbrae Avenue on the northwest, South Magnolia Avenue on the northeast, Murchison Drive on the southeast, and Sequoia Avenue on the southwest. State Route 82 is located approximately 0.1 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the southwest, multi-family residences to the northwest, northeast, and southeast, and commercial land uses to the east. A narrow strip of open space that includes a public trail separates the school and stadium from Millbrae Avenue and the multi-family residences to the northwest. The nearest residence is located approximately 190 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Spring Valley Elementary School is located approximately 0.1 mile to the south. The Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center is located directly to the east, across Magnolia Avenue. The Millbrae BART and Caltrain stations are located approximately 0.2 mile to the northeast.

e. San Mateo High School

San Mateo High School is located at 506 North Delaware Street in the City of San Mateo. As shown on Figure 2e, the stadium is located on the northwest portion of the school property. The school is bordered by North Delaware Street on the southwest, East Poplar Avenue on the southeast, North Humboldt Street on the northeast, and the Woodlake Apartments on the northwest. U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 0.1 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the northeast, multi-family residences to the northwest and southwest, and institutional land uses to the southeast. The District Office and the San Mateo Adult Resources Technology Center both occupy land adjacent to the high school. The nearest residence is the Woodlake Apartments, which are located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. College Park Elementary School is located directly to the southeast, across East Poplar Avenue. The Caltrain right-of-way is located approximately 0.1 mile to the southwest.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-9 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

Project Overview. The SMUHSD includes six comprehensive high schools that educate approximately 8,200 students, one Middle College program in conjunction with the College of San Mateo, and one continuation school. Of the six comprehensive high schools, only one (Burlingame High School) has permanent stadium lighting. The remaining five comprehensive high schools (Aragon, Capuchino, Hillsdale, Mills, and San Mateo High Schools) occasionally use portable lighting systems that are powered by diesel generators to provide stadium lighting for nighttime athletic contests. The portable lights do not light the field efficiently or precisely, and the diesel generators produce noise and air pollution. With the exception of the lighting at Burlingame High School, SMUHSD is the only district in the Peninsula Athletic League that does not have permanent stadium lighting.

The current public address systems are antiquated and create unintended noise that is not properly directed within the stadiums. The project sites currently use a mix of permanently affixed and portable public address systems. Upgraded public address systems, which are planned along with the stadium lighting improvements, would be designed to reduce the amount of fugitive noise that leaves the stadiums during night games. Lighting. The lighting installation at each stadium would generally consist of two sets of poles. The first set of poles would support lighting fixtures for illuminating the field during sports competitions, practices, and other events. These poles would be approximately 80 feet tall and would be installed at eight locations within each stadium, typically arranged as four poles spaced evenly along each long side of the athletic field. The second set of poles would support lighting fixtures for illuminating the field during post-event egress, clean-up, early morning track use, and potentially during sports team practices. These poles would be up to approximately 30 feet tall and would be installed at up to 18 locations throughout each stadium site to provide adequate lighting for safe egress. The approximate location of the new 80-foot and 30-foot lighting poles for each stadium is shown on Figure 2-3a through Figure 2-3e. The primary stadium lights would consist of eight Musco 80-foot Light-Structure System poles with Green Generation LED luminaires (light fixtures). The luminaires would be mounted at up to three locations on each pole. Downward-facing luminaires would be mounted at 80 feet on each pole and would serve as the primary source of illumination for the field during sports events and other activities. Additional downward-facing luminaires may be mounted at approximately 70 feet on some poles in order to provide consistent illumination across the field surface. Lower output, upward-facing luminaires would be mounted at 20 feet on each pole in order to illuminate airborne objects such as footballs during punts and kickoffs. The upward- facing luminaires are necessary because the modern Musco lighting system provides highly focused light and minimizes glare to the extent that airborne objects such as footballs during

San Mateo Union High School District 2-10 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

kickoffs would not otherwise be visible to the players and spectators. The profile, elevation, and luminaire details for the Musco 80-foot Light-Structure System poles are shown on Figure 2-4. A second set of lower output LED luminaires would be installed on up to 18 new and existing poles, each up to approximately 30 feet tall. These egress and clean-up lighting system poles would be spaced evenly around the perimeter of each track and also along pathways leading to ADA-compliant accessible parking spaces. The egress lights would be supplied with a back-up power source to maintain functionality during a power outage. Public Address System. A new public address system would be installed at each stadium. The public address system would typically consist of speakers mounted on up to 18 poles, each approximately 30 feet tall. These poles would be located behind the bleachers on either side of the athletic field. In some cases a public address speaker would be mounted on a pole that also supports an egress lighting luminaire. The speakers would be directed towards the spectators and the field, and they would be designed to minimize the amount of sound that would leave the stadium. The public address system would be controlled by an automixer/ digital signal processor (DSP) and a control panel located in the press box. The DSP would be set to limit the sound level to conform to the requirements of the applicable local noise ordinance. The approximate location of the new public address speaker poles for each stadium is shown on Figure 2-3a through Figure 2-3e. Security, Crowd and Traffic Control, and Litter Removal. The District would work with each City’s police department to develop a traffic, parking, and security plan for football games. Upon request, schools would provide on-site phone numbers of staff who can address traffic, parking, security, and nuisance issues should they arise. The District does not anticipate the need for security or traffic and parking management for events other than football games as football is the only activity that is anticipated to draw a significant crowd. During football games and similarly large events such as graduation ceremonies, parking demand would exceed on-site parking availability. Some off-site street parking on surrounding streets would be utilized during large events, which would occur less than 10 times per year. With the exception of the large events, all other uses of the stadium would not result in demand for offsite parking. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes to the existing parking lot and driveway configuration at any of the project sites. For additional details on traffic and parking management (including parking lot locations, off-street parking usage, and predicted travel routes for athletic event attendees), please see Section 4.5, Transportation and Traffic. Trash receptacles would be provided inside and outside of each school stadium. Each school would remove trash bags resulting from games or events from school property and properly dispose of all event-related trash immediately or no later than the following morning. Each school would be responsible for checking the school grounds and adjacent properties for litter. All litter would be removed immediately following each event or as soon as practically feasible.

Schedule of Events. The new stadium lighting systems would allow for the expansion of nighttime activities at the subject stadium sites. These activities would end no later than 9:30 PM, and the main lights would be turned off no later than ten minutes after the end of a scheduled activity. The proposed schedule of events and the associated start and end times for both lighting and public address system use are shown in Table 2-1 below.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-11 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

(! (!(!

(! (!(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (!

(! 30-foot safety/egress light poles (! 80-foot stadium light poles

Aragon High School Light Pole Locations Figure 2-3a San Mateo Union High School District 2-12 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

(! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (!(! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(!(! (! (!

(! 30-foot safety/egress light poles (! 80-foot stadium light poles

Capuchino High School Light Pole Locations Figure 2-3b San Mateo Union High School District 2-13 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(!(! (!(!

(! (! (! (!

(!(! (!

(! (!

(! 30-foot safety/egress light poles (! 80-foot stadium light poles

Hillsdale High School Light Pole Locations Figure 2-3c San Mateo Union High School District 2-14 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

(! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (!

(! 30-foot safety/egress light poles (! 80-foot stadium light poles

Mills High School Light Pole Locations Figure 2-3d San Mateo Union High School District 2-15 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

(! (! (! (!

(! (!

(! (! (!

(! (! (! (! ! (! (

(! 30-foot safety/egress light poles (! 80-foot stadium light poles

San Mateo High School Light Pole Locations Figure 2-3e San Mateo Union High School District 2-16 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Lighting Pole Details Figure 2-4 San Mateo Union High School District 2-17 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Table 2-1 Proposed Schedule of Events Day of Main Lights Event Type Frequency the Week Off Time PA Use? Evening Football Game Six regular season (max); F 9:40 PM Yes two playoff games (max) Daytime Football Game No change from current conditions Yes Evening Non-Football Game As scheduled MTWT 8:40 PM Minimal As scheduled F 9:40 PM Minimal Evening School Activities Maximum of four per year MTWTF 8:30 PM Yes Evening Athletic Practice As scheduled MTWTF 8:30 PM No Community Athletic Games Year-round MTWTFSa 8:30 PM No Community Morning Track Use Winter, regulations TBD MTWTFSaSu N/A No Source: SMUHSD Board Policy #7325, District Stadium Lights and Public Address Systems

Athletic practices would constitute the majority of evening stadium use at the five project sites. These practices could occur on any day during the week and could utilize the stadium lights until 8:30 PM. The public address system would not be used during practices. No spectators are expected to attend practices, and noise would be limited to students’ and coaches’ voices and potentially an occasional coach’s whistle. Evening community athletic activities (such as adult league soccer) could also occur any day during the week until 8:30 PM. Community athletic activities could occur as frequently or more frequently than school sports practices. However, school activities would have scheduling priority over non-school activities. The same as with school practices, the public address system would not be used during community athletic activities and noise would be limited to participants’ voices and potentially an occasional referee’s whistle.

Non-football high school sports games, including soccer and lacrosse, could occur Monday through Thursday until 8:30 PM and Fridays until 9:30 PM. These games could occur up to approximately 40 times per year. Use of the public address system would be limited to essential announcements such as the score and player substitutions. No running commentary would occur during non-football games. Spectator attendance at non-football games historically has been much lower than at football games, and crowds larger than 40 persons are not expected during evening non-football sports games.

Evening football games would occur up to eight times per year (up to six regular season games and two playoff games) on Friday evenings until 9:30 PM. The main stadium lights would be turned off no later than 9:40 PM. The football games would make full use of the public address system and would involve running commentary. Spectator attendance at the football games would be substantially greater than for non-football games. Crowds could be as large as bleacher capacity, which (with the exception of San Mateo High School) ranges from approximately 700 persons to 1,100 persons. The bleacher capacity at San Mateo High School is approximately 3,100 persons. With the possible exception of a homecoming game or a playoff game, it is anticipated that the crowd size at San Mateo High School would reach up to approximately 75% of the bleacher capacity.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-18 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Evening school activities (such as graduation, rallies, or other special events) could occur up to four times per year and would involve the use of the public address system. The crowds for one or more of these special events may be comparable in size to those during an evening football game. The main stadium lights would be used for these events and would be turned off no later than 8:30 PM.

Utilities. Electricity for the proposed stadium lights would be provided by PG&E through existing service connections. New electrical conduit would be installed on-site as described above to provide power to the lighting and public address systems. No new off-site electrical infrastructure would be required, and the existing service connections would provide a sufficient amount of electricity to power the lighting and public address systems. No restrooms, drinking fountains, sprinklers, or other sources of wastewater would be constructed as part of the project. Existing drinking fountains and water faucets within and near the stadium improvement sites would remain unchanged, and no uses that would increase water demand are proposed. The solid waste associated with construction of the proposed project would be limited to a very small amount of packaging waste from the lighting and public address equipment and concrete and soil that would be removed during pole installation and electrical conduit trenching. No new concession services are proposed as part of this project, and waste generated during evening athletic games, such as food and beverage containers, would likely represent a redistribution of the existing waste stream rather than the introduction of a new source of waste generation. Waste associated with the proposed project would be disposed of at the Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Landfill, which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the small amount of waste that would be associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Electrical Connections. Electrical connections for the new lighting and public address systems would be accomplished through new cables placed in underground conduits. These new electrical conduits would be located entirely within each school property and would connect to existing electrical service connections provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). No new overhead electrical transmission structures would be required, and no new electrical system infrastructure would be installed outside of school property. The existing transmission infrastructure is sufficient to supply power to the proposed stadium lights at the five project sites. The new conduits would be installed through either open trench or jack and bore construction. The conduits would be run underground to form a circuit between the new lighting system poles. Pullboxes would be installed at each lighting pole, at certain control panel locations, and at other locations around the stadium as necessary for the construction and operation of the new electrical system.

Construction Schedule and Details. Project construction is estimated to last up to approximately 4 months. Construction activity may occur simultaneously at two or more project sites, and the construction phasing plan would be designed to maximize the efficient use of construction equipment and personnel. At any given time during the construction schedule, different active construction phases may be underway at each of the project sites. Construction activities would include materials delivery, site preparation and minimal grading, excavation for pole foundation installation, trenching and boring for electrical conduit installation, installation via hydraulic crane of the lighting and PA speaker poles, mounting of the luminaires and speakers, and restoration of disturbed surfaces including pavement and vegetation that was removed during excavation and trenching.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-19 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

Ground disturbance would be limited to excavation for the lighting and speaker system pole foundations and trenching or boring for the electrical conduit installation. The conduit trenches would be approximately three feet deep and one foot wide. Foundation excavations for the 80- foot lighting poles would 10 feet deep or less. Excavated soil would be reused to the maximum extent possible. Small amounts of clean fill, sand, and pea-gravel would be imported as necessary. The quantity of exported soil at each site would be 50 cubic yards or less. Existing pavement above new conduit installation locations would be removed and replaced after completion of trenching, or would be avoided using bore and jacking conduit installation. The proposed project would not include any new landscaping. Landscaped areas (such as grassy lawns or other vegetated areas) that would be disturbed during trenching for electrical conduits would be restored to pre-construction conditions. The driplines of existing trees would be avoided to the maximum extent possible, and no tree removal is proposed. The construction equipment and the number days that each piece of equipment would be used for each project site is estimated as follows:

• Semi-truck and lowboy for materials delivery (4 each, scheduled as needed) • Excavator mounted drill rig for 80’ pole foundation excavation (2 days) • Small excavator or backhoe for site preparation and trenching (20 days) • Skid steer drill rig for 30’ pole foundation excavation (5 days) • Hydraulic horizontal boring machine for conduit tunnel boring (20 days) • Hydraulic crane for pole installation and luminaire mounting (2 days) • Concrete pump for foundations (2 days) • Concrete trucks for foundations (2 days)

During the approximately four month construction period, equipment would be staged and stored in a secure area on District property or would be stored off-site at the contractor’s discretion between periods of use.

2.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the proposed project are to: • Extend play time on the fields and expand student participation in athletic programs. • Achieve parity with the Peninsula Athletic League by providing permanent stadium lighting to allow for the hosting of evening athletic contests. • Provide extended availability of the athletic fields to improve student academic performance by minimizing early class dismissal for student athletes. • Increase the evening availability of the stadiums for sports practices and other events, which will allow student athletes to enroll in 7th period classes and allow school start times to align with the best practices set by the Board of Pediatrics Physicians. • Allow for the scheduling of games at times when students, parents, and community members can more easily attend the events. • Improve the District’s ability to serve the community by providing the opportunity for expanded community use of the stadium, including early morning track use and evening community sports league use. • Provide energy efficient, focused lighting with minimal glare. • Improve athlete safety by providing superior lighting conditions during evening practices and sports events. • Eliminate the diesel generators, thereby reducing air pollution and unnecessary noise.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-20 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

2.7 REQUIRED APPROVALS

The SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project would require the approval of the SMUHSD Board of Trustees. The Division of the State Architect (DSA) provides design and construction oversight for K-12 schools, community colleges, and other state-owned and leased facilities. The DSA provides plan review for structural safety, fire and life safety, and ADA accessibility compliance. For construction activities at Mills High School, the District would be required to obtain an encroachment permit from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Approval would not be required by any other public agencies.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-21 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 2-22 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the project. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 REGIONAL SETTING

The San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD or “the District”) serves six cities within San Mateo County that have a combined population of over 235,000 people. The District includes six comprehensive high schools that educate approximately 8,200 students, one Middle College program in conjunction with the College of San Mateo, and one continuation school (SMUHSD “About the District” webpage, 2015).

San Mateo County is located within the Peninsula of the San Francisco Bay Area. The climate of the Bay Area region and the coastal influence produce moderate temperatures year round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. The Peninsula is served by several major surface routes, including Interstate 280, Highway 101, and Highway 92 (Hayward-San Mateo Bridge) as well as by public transportation including Caltrain.

3.2 PROJECT SITE SETTING

Existing site conditions and the surrounding land uses and development for each high school associated with this project are described below. Additional setting information relevant to each individual environmental topic covered in this EIR is provided in the respective EIR section. See Figure 2-1, Regional Location in Section 2.0, Project Description, for a general overview of the locations of the schools and figures 2-2a through 2-2e for the specific locations of the schools.

Of the six comprehensive high schools within the District, only one (Burlingame High School) has permanent stadium lighting and a public address (PA) system. The remaining five schools occasionally use portable lighting systems that are powered by diesel generators to provide stadium lighting for night games and practices and have a mixture of temporary and semi- permanent PA systems.

Aragon High School

Aragon High School is located at 900 Alameda de las Pulgas in the City of San Mateo. The school was established in 1961 and currently enrolls approximately 1,420 students. The school provides 276 on-site parking stalls. Access to the school is provided from Alameda de las Pulgas and Woodland Drive. The topography of the school is generally flat and slopes slightly to the northeast. Black Mountain rises to the west of the campus. The campus sits on a hillslope above the adjacent street level on the northeast boundary. The campus is landscaped with mature decorative trees and landscaping.

As shown on Figure 2-2a, the stadium is located on the northeast portion of the school property. The stadium has a bleacher capacity of 698 persons. Alameda de las Pulgas borders the school on the northeast. Woodland Drive curves around the school property forming the northwest and southwest borders. Hobart Avenue borders the school on the southeast. State Route 92 is

San Mateo Union High School District 3-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting

located approximately 0.2 mile to the southeast. State Route 82 (El Camino Real) is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single- family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 130 feet northeast of the edge of the stadium. The only adjacent non-residential land use is Baywood Elementary School, which is located to the northwest across Woodland Drive.

Capuchino High School

Capuchino High School is located at 1501 Magnolia Boulevard in the City of San Bruno. The school opened in 1950 and currently enrolls approximately 1,100 students. The school provides 255 on-site parking stalls. The school is located approximately two blocks west of SR-82/El Camino Real. Access from El Camino Real is provided by Park Boulevard and Millwood Drive. The topography of the school is generally flat and slopes very slightly to the northeast. The stadium is sunken below the adjacent street level on the south. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Hetch Hechy aqueduct runs beneath a portion of the campus.

As shown on Figure 2-2b, the stadium is located on the southwest portion of the school property. The stadium has a bleacher capacity of 1,130 persons. Magnolia Boulevard borders the school on the northeast. Park Boulevard runs along the northwest boundary of the school. Barcelona Drive forms the southwestern boundary, and Millwood Drive borders the school on the southeast. State Route 82 is located approximately 0.1 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single-family residences. A few multi-family residences border the school to the east. The nearest residence is located approximately 170 feet south of the edge of the stadium. Green Hills Country Club is located approximately 250 feet to the south of the school property boundary. San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northeast, across U.S. Highway 101.

Hillsdale High School

Hillsdale High School is located at 3115 Del Monte Street in the City of San Mateo. The school was established in 1955 and currently enrolls approximately 1,350 students. The school provides 370 on-site parking stalls. The topography of the school slopes moderately to the northeast. Pulgas Ridge runs approximately north to south, west of the campus.

As shown on Figure 2-2c, the stadium is located on the northeast portion of the school property. The stadium has a bleacher capacity of 988 persons. The school is bordered by 31st Avenue on the northwest, Alameda de las Pulgas on the northeast, West Hillsdale Boulevard on the southeast, and Del Monte Street on the southwest. State Route 82 is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded entirely by single-family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Abbott Middle School is located approximately 400 feet to the southeast, across West Hillsdale Boulevard.

Mills High School

Mills High School is located at 400 Murchison Drive in the City of Millbrae. The school was founded in 1958 and currently enrolls approximately 1,210 students. The school provides 170 on-site parking stalls. Mills High School is located one block west of SR-82/El Camino Real. Access to the campus is via Millbrae Avenue, Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive. The topography of the school is generally flat. Buri Buri Ridge runs approximately north to south,

San Mateo Union High School District 3-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting

west of the campus. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Hetch Hechy aqueduct runs beneath a portion of the campus.

As shown on Figure 2-2d, the stadium is located on the northwest portion of the school property. The stadium has a bleacher capacity of 919 persons. The school is bordered by Millbrae Avenue on the northwest, South Magnolia Avenue on the northeast, Murchison Drive on the southeast, and Sequoia Avenue on the southwest. State Route 82 is located approximately 0.1 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the southwest, multi-family residences to the northwest, northeast, and southeast, and commercial land uses to the east. A narrow strip of open space that includes a public trail separates the school and stadium from Millbrae Avenue and the multi-family residences to the northwest. The nearest residence is located approximately 190 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Spring Valley Elementary School is located approximately 0.1 mile to the south. The Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center is located directly to the east, across Magnolia Avenue. The Millbrae BART and Caltrain stations are located approximately 0.2 mile to the northeast.

San Mateo High School

San Mateo High School is located at 506 North Delaware Street in the City of San Mateo. The school was founded in 1902 and currently enrolls approximately 1,560 students. The school provides 297 on-site parking stalls. An additional 188 parking stalls are available at the District Office and the San Mateo Adult Resources Technology Center, both of which are located adjacent to the high school. San Mateo High School is located between SR-82/El Camino Real and US-101. The campus is bounded by East Poplar Avenue to the south, North Delaware Street to the west and North Humboldt Street to the east. Access to SR-82/El Camino Real and US-101 are provided by Peninsula Avenue to the north and East Poplar Avenue. The topography of the school is generally flat and slopes slightly to the east and northeast.

As shown on Figure 2-2e, the stadium is located on the northwest portion of the school property. The stadium has a bleacher capacity of 3,136 persons. The school is bordered by North Delaware Street on the southwest, East Poplar Avenue on the southeast, North Humboldt Street on the northeast, and the Woodlake Apartments on the northwest. U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 0.1 mile to the northeast. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the northeast, multi-family residences to the northwest and southwest, and institutional land uses to the southeast. The nearest residence is the Woodlake Apartments, which are located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. College Park Elementary School is located directly to the southeast, across East Poplar Avenue. The Caltrain right-of-way is located approximately 0.1 mile to the southwest.

3.3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SETTING

In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires EIRs to consider potential cumulative impacts. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative

San Mateo Union High School District 3-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 3.0 Environmental Setting

impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential. Currently planned and pending projects within the study area are listed in Table 3-1. These projects are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. Table 3-2 summarizes cumulative development in the study area by land use.

Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects Dwelling Non-Residential Location Description Units Square Footage 221 S. El Camino Real Retail -- 11,000 Office -- 21,499 Central Park South Apartment 60 -- (885 S. El Camino Real) Office -- 11,010 Expresso Lane Drive-Thru Restaurant -- 492 (1990 S. El Camino Real) Bay Meadows Retail -- 93,000 Office -- 11,030 Condo/Townhome 392 -- 2 E. 3rd Street Retail -- 3,950 Office -- 11,030 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue Condo/Townhome 29 -- Burlingame Point Project Research & Development (R&D) -- 767,000 225 California Drive Retail -- 1,820 Office -- 11,030 TOTAL 481 942,861 Source: DKS, 2016 Note: All totals are approximate based on standard uncertainties related to specific project information.

Table 3-2 Approximate Study Area Cumulative Development by Land Use

Land Use Type Total Cumulative Development

Retail 109,770 sf

R&D/Office 832,599 sf

Restaurant 492 sf

Residential 481 du

Source: See Table 3-1 Sf = square feet; du = dwelling unit Note: All totals are approximate based on standard uncertainties related to specific project information.

San Mateo Union High School District 3-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed project for the issue areas that were identified through the Initial Study and NOP process as having the potential to experience significant impacts. “Significant effect” is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines §15382 as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.”

The assessment of environmental effects contained in each issue area begins with a discussion of the setting. Following the setting is a discussion of the project’s impacts. Within the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria used for this analysis to determine whether potential impacts are significant. The next subsection describes the impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. The significance of the project’s environmental impacts was identified based on the following classifications:

Class I, Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved.

Class II, Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings to be made.

Class III, Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.

Class IV, Beneficial: An impact that would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other future development in the area.

San Mateo Union High School District 4-1

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 4-2

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Setting

a. Existing Visual Character of the Region. The San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) operates public high schools in predominantly residential communities on the bayside of a peninsula bisected by the wooded Skyline-Santa Cruz Mountains (Millbrae, 1998). These communities, including the cities of Millbrae, Burlingame, and San Mateo, can be divided into two topographic areas: a mostly flat portion to the east near San Francisco Bay and steep hills and canyons to the west. Views of scenic landscape features, mountains, hills, and the bay dominate the visual environment and provide a strong sense of orientation to those living or traveling in the area. However, these communities are almost entirely built out and urbanized. Views within the urban communities consist primarily of residential development, as well as commercial development along El Camino Real (State Route 82) and U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101).

b. Existing Visual Character of the Project Sites. The five high-school stadiums where SMUHSD proposes to install athletic lighting have similar visual character. The most prominent visual features at each stadium are a relatively flat green athletic field surrounded by a reddish brown oval track, a mounted scoreboard at one end of the field, yellow goal posts at each end, and gray bleachers on one or both of the long sides of the field. Each stadium’s particular visual features (e.g., topography and vegetation) and nearest sensitive viewers are discussed below.

Aragon High School Site. Aragon High School is located in a single-family residential area characterized by gently rolling terrain in the western part of the city of San Mateo. The stadium at Aragon High School is surrounded by Alameda de las Pulgas (a four-lane road) and residences to the northeast, an access road to the high school and residences on Hobart Avenue to the southeast, a baseball field and basketball courts to the southwest, and an open field to the northwest. The track and field is elevated above Alameda de las Pulgas beyond a vegetated slope extending up to the field from the sidewalk. A perimeter chain-link fence and a row of trees to northwest, northeast, and southwest separates the field from surrounding land uses. Figure 4.1-1 shows the existing visual conditions at and surrounding the stadium.

Several residences located approximately 125 feet southeast of the stadium on Hobart Avenue have direct views of the Aragon High School field because they are situated at or above the level of the field and views are not screened by trees in this direction. Views through the site from residences across Alameda de las Pulgas are generally obstructed by the existing trees and bushes around the perimeter and the site’s raised topography.

Capuchino High School Site. Capuchino High School is located in gently rolling terrain at the southern end of the city of San Bruno but is surrounded by a single-family residential neighborhood at the northern edge of the city of Millbrae. The high school’s stadium is bounded by basketball courts and a baseball diamond to the north, school buildings to the east, Barcelona Drive and residences to the south, and a surface parking lot with carports covered by solar panels to the west. The nearest residences to the athletic field are located as close as 140 feet northwest of the Capuchino High School track, across Park Boulevard, and 180 feet south of the track across Barcelona Drive. An earthen berm separates the stadium from nearby residences to the west and south on Park Boulevard and Barcelona Drive. The stadium is

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Photo 1: View toward the project site from Alameda de las Photo 2: View looking south from the stadium toward residences Pulgas/Seville Way intersection. on Hobart Avenue.

Photo 3: View toward existing bleachers on the south side of the Photo 4: View looking southeast from bleachers on the south field. side of the field.

Views of Aragon High School Figure 4.1-1 San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

sunken below the elevation of these nearby residences. A perimeter chain-link fence separates the field from adjacent streets. Figure 4.1-2 shows the existing visual conditions at and surrounding the stadium.

Residences located on Park Boulevard north of the site have the most direct views of the athletic field, which are not obstructed by intervening topography or trees. In addition, residences on Park Boulevard west of the site and Barcelona Drive to the south have views that are partially obstructed by the berm and mature coniferous trees.

Hillsdale High School Site. Hillsdale High School is located in a relatively flat single- family residential neighborhood in the southern part of the city of San Mateo. The stadium (Rich Mazzoncini Stadium) is bounded by 31st Avenue and residences to the north, Alameda de las Pulgas and residences to the east, a surface parking lot at the school and residences along West Hillsdale Boulevard to the south, and open playfields at the school to the west. The nearest residences to the athletic field are located as close as 80 feet away on 31st Avenue and 125 feet away on Alameda de las Pulgas. Figure 4.1-3 shows the existing visual conditions at and surrounding the stadium.

Several residences on 31st Avenue have unobstructed views of the stadium or views that are partially obstructed by trees on the north side of the stadium. The stadium is also visible from residences east of Alameda de las Pulgas, although trees in the median and sidewalks of this roadway partially obstruct views. In addition, residences in the hillsides of San Mateo to the west have distant downward views of the stadium. Views toward the stadium from one-story residences along West Hillsdale Boulevard are largely obstructed by a wooden fence north of these residences.

Mills High School Site. Mills High School is located in a mixed single-family and multi- family residential and commercial neighborhood characterized by gently rolling terrain, in the southern part of the city of Millbrae. The stadium (Jim Cox Field) at Mills High School is surrounded by tennis courts to the northeast, a swimming pool and school buildings to the southeast, a baseball diamond to the southwest, and a publicly accessible trail and Millbrae Skate Park in the Spur property to the northwest. The Spur property is a linear, 52-acre open space corridor in Millbrae, parts of which have been improved with trails and recreational amenities. The nearest residences to Jim Cox Field are several single-family homes located approximately 215 feet to the northwest, across Millbrae Avenue. A dense row of trees lines the southwest edge of the field, and isolated trees are present in the Spur property to the northwest. Figure 4.1-4 shows the existing visual conditions at and surrounding the stadium.

The field is partially visible through intervening trees in the Spur property from the perspective of residences on Millbrae Avenue. In addition, it is partially visible from residences approximately 650 feet away from the northeast edge of the field, looking across other school playfields. Residences in the hillsides of Millbrae to the southeast also have distant views of Jim Cox Field. However, school buildings completely obstruct views from residences to the south and southeast.

San Mateo High School Site. San Mateo High School is located in the relatively flat northern portion of the city of San Mateo, surrounded by single-family houses and apartments. The stadium at San Mateo High School (Maryann Johnson Memorial Field) is bounded by a baseball diamond to the northeast; tennis courts, a surface parking lot with carports covered by

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Photo 1: View looking north toward the stadium from Barcelona Photo 2: View looking north from the north end of the track. Drive.

Photo 3: View looking northwest from the bleachers on the east Photo 4: View looking southwest from the northern end of the field. side of the field.

Views of Capuchino High School Figure 4.1-2 San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Photo 1: View looking southeast at the bleachers and track Photo 2: View looking northwest toward 31st Street. (adjacent residences at left).

Photo 3: View looking west across the stadium field. Note the Photo 4: View looking south across the stadium field. Again, elevated topography west of the site. note the elevated topography to the south.

Views of Hillsdale High School Figure 4.1-3 San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Photo 1: View looking southwest from the center of the stadium Photo 2: View looking northwest from the eastern end of the field. stadium track.

Photo 3: View toward residences northwest of the stadium. Photo 4: View toward residences northeast of the stadium.

Views of Mills High School Figure 4.1-4 San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

solar panels, and the San Mateo Performing Arts Center to the southeast; the SMUHSD offices to the southwest; and a three-story apartment building (Woodlake Apartments) to the northwest. The nearest apartments are located as close as 85 feet to the northwest of the field. Single-family residences on North Delaware Street are located approximately 250 feet to the southwest. Figure 4.1-5 shows the existing visual conditions at and surrounding the stadium.

The athletic field is partially visible through intervening trees from the apartment building to the northwest. The SMUHSD office buildings mostly obstruct views of the field from one- and two-story residences on North Delaware Street.

c. Existing Light and Glare Conditions of the Project Sites. On-site and offsite sources contribute to existing light conditions (or “illumination”) at the stadiums. Each school currently uses portable lights several times per year, including during evening regular-season and playoff football games, to illuminate the field. Under existing conditions, some football games are played during the daytime and do not require portable lights. For evening football games, up to five portable lights are positioned at even intervals on the track along each sideline. The light fixtures are metal halide and emit 440,000 lumens at a height of 30 feet above the ground. Each portable light array is designed to illuminate five to seven acres. The mounted digital scoreboard at each stadium also produces low-intensity light during athletic events. Exterior security light fixtures are located at on-site school buildings near the stadiums. In addition, each stadium receives spillover light to varying degrees from nearby streetlamps and the headlights of cars on adjacent roads.

Glare refers to the discomfort or impairment of vision experienced when a person is exposed to a direct or reflected view of a light source, causing objectionable brightness that is greater than that to which the eyes are adapted (Pennsylvania Outdoor Lighting Council, n.d.). By contrast, illumination is defined as the amount of light that strikes an object, including light cast by sources that are not directly seen by viewers. The intensity of glare ranges from the worst case of “disability glare,” where visibility is lost, to “discomfort glare,” where the light is distracting and uncomfortable. Discomfort glare is a subjective phenomenon and has not been directly linked to a physiological cause (Shuster, 2014). The amount of glare depends on a set of factors such as the size of the source, the contrast between background light and the glare source, and the age of the viewer (Hiscocks, 2011). General sources of glare at the stadiums include headlights on and reflected sunlight from automobiles on adjacent streets, reflected sunlight from the windows of nearby buildings, and the portable stadium lights when present.

Aragon High School Site. Existing light sources at the Aragon High School stadium site include the digital scoreboard at the southeast end of the field and portable lights during evening home football games. Offsite sources of light that may spill over to the stadium are streetlamps on Alameda de las Pulgas and the headlights of motor vehicles on the school access road southeast of the stadium. The primary sources of glare in the immediate project vicinity are motor vehicles on the school access road, and reflected sunlight from the windows of nearby residences.

Capuchino High School Site. Existing light sources at the Capuchino High School stadium include the digital scoreboard at the south end of the field, light fixtures at the school’s surface parking lot between the stadium and Park Boulevard, and portable lights during evening home football games. The primary sources of light in the immediate project vicinity are

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-7 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Photo 1: View looking southwest toward N. Delaware Street. Photo 2: View looking northeast toward N. Humboldt Street.

Photo 3: View looking northwest from the northeastern corner Photo 4: View looking northeast between the stadium of the stadium track. Woodlake Apartments are behind the trees. and Woodlake Apartments.

Views of San Mateo High School Figure 4.1-5 San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-8 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

the headlights of cars on Park Boulevard and Barcelona Drive. The primary sources of glare are motor vehicles on Park Boulevard and Barcelona Drive and the windows of nearby residences.

Hillsdale High School Site. Existing light sources at the Hillsdale High School stadium include the digital scoreboard at the south end of the field and portable lights during evening home football games. Offsite sources of light in the immediate vicinity are streetlamps on Alameda de las Pulgas; the headlights of cars on Alameda de las Pulgas and 31st Avenue; and light emanating from windows of nearby residences east of Alameda de las Pulgas, north of 31st Avenue, and north of West Hillsdale Boulevard. The primary sources of glare are motor vehicles on adjacent roads and the reflected sunlight from the windows of nearby residences.

Mills High School Site. Existing light sources at the Mills High School stadium include two pole-mounted lights on a walkway leading to the south end of the field, the digital scoreboard at the southwest end of the field, and portable lights during evening home football games. Offsite sources of light in the immediate vicinity include streetlamps and the headlights of cars on Millbrae Avenue. The primary sources of glare in the immediate vicinity are headlights on automobiles on Millbrae Avenue, and reflected sunlight from the windows of nearby residences. Adjacent school buildings lack windows or other reflective surfaces facing the stadium and therefore would not generate glare in that direction.

San Mateo High School Site. Existing light sources at the San Mateo High School stadium include several 30-foot-tall pole-mounted lights lining the track, for security and egress; the digital scoreboard at the southwest end of the field; and portable lights during evening home football games. Light sources in the immediate vicinity of the stadium include pole-mounted light fixtures at the SMUHSD offices and the San Mateo Performing Arts Center to the southwest and at the school baseball field to the northeast, and streetlamps and the headlights of cars on North Delaware Street. The primary sources of glare in the immediate vicinity are cars on North Delaware Street and in the surface parking lot for the SMUHSD offices, and reflected sunlight from windows at the SMUHSD office buildings and nearby residences.

d. Regulatory Setting.

State.

Government Code Section 53094. This article of California’s Government Code states that a school district is not required to comply with the zoning ordinances of a county or city unless the zoning ordinance makes provision for the location of public schools and unless the city or county has adopted a general plan. Furthermore, this article authorizes the governing board of a school district to render a local zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district, by a vote of two-thirds of its members. The governing board may not takes this action when the proposed use of the property is for nonclassroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings. Because the proposed project is considered an improvement to educational facilities at public schools, the governing board of SMUHSD by Resolution 15-16 adopted on October 22, 2015 voted to exempt the proposed project from local zoning ordinance requirements pertaining to aesthetics.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-9 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Local. Although SMUHSD does not need to comply with local zoning ordinances, pursuant to Government Code Section 53094, the following regulatory information for the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and San Mateo is provided for reference.

City of San Bruno General Plan. The City of San Bruno’s General Plan (2009) does not include goals or policies applicable to light and glare from school sites. In addition, policies intended to protect scenic views in San Bruno would not apply to Capuchino High School, the only school site that is located within city limits.

City of Millbrae General Plan. The City of Millbrae’s General Plan (1998) does not include goals or policies applicable to light and glare from school sites. Policies to preserve scenic vistas of and visual resources in open space would not apply to the proposed school sites.

City of San Mateo General Plan. The City of San Mateo’s General Plan (2010) does not include policies pertaining to light, glare, or visual character that would apply to the proposed school project.

San Bruno Municipal Code. Section 7.16.030 of the City of San Bruno’s Municipal Code defines as a public nuisance the generation of intense glare that unreasonably affects use and enjoyment of neighboring property or confuses or interferes with travel along a street or sidewalk. However, the San Bruno Municipal Code lacks quantitative lighting standards that would apply to the school sites. Section 23.54.060 also requires that exterior security lighting be designed to limit light spill beyond property lines and to shield the light source from view from offsite.

Millbrae Municipal Code. The City of Millbrae’s Municipal Code has no light or glare standards that would apply to the project.

San Mateo Municipal Code. The City of San Mateo’s Municipal Code does not have light or glare standards that would apply to the project.

4.1.2 Impact Analysis

a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds.

Significance Thresholds. An aesthetic impact is considered significant if the addition of stadium lights would:

1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings; or 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that the project would not damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway corridor. Therefore, the analysis of aesthetic impacts focuses on thresholds 1, 3, and 4.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-10 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Methodology.

Scenic Vistas and Visual Character Impacts. The analysis of scenic vistas and visual character is based on a field reconnaissance, Google Maps review, and photo documentation of each of the stadium sites. The scenic vistas discussion focuses on identified public view locations, but also considers impacts to private views. The visual character analysis considers whether or not the proposed lighting systems would substantially and adversely degrade the overall aesthetic qualities of the site relative to current conditions.

Light Impacts. The analysis of light impacts is based on standards developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), in the absence of any quantitative standards adopted by the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and San Mateo that would otherwise apply to the proposed project. The IESNA Lighting Handbook, Ninth Edition (2000), establishes criteria for the significance of illuminance produced by a project, based on existing ambient light levels. Illuminance is the quantity of incident light on a plane surface and is commonly measured in terms of foot-candles (fc) (Pennsylvania Outdoor Lighting Council, n.d.).

The IESNA handbook ranks geographic areas by the amount and intensity of existing light sources, ranging from E1 (rural and most sensitive) to E4 (urban and least sensitive) (San Diego Unified School District, 2014). Areas that are more rural in character, and therefore exhibit few existing sources of light, are more susceptible to impacts resulting from the installation of new lighting sources. By contrast, urbanized areas have a large number of existing lighting sources and are therefore less susceptible to adverse effects associated with new lighting sources. In the IESNA ranking system, the five stadium sites would be categorized in the E3 lighting zone, which denotes areas of medium ambient brightness, such as urban residential areas. The IESNA’s recommended environmental zone E3 light trespass standard is 0.8 fc during pre- curfew hours (prior to 10 PM) and 0.2 fc during post-curfew hours (after 10 PM).

Light impacts are analyzed by quantifying the spillover of light, or “light trespass,” at the nearest residential property lines to the stadiums. Light trespass is measured on both the vertical plane (e.g., light shining through a window) and the horizontal plane (e.g., light falling on a bed), in terms of foot-candles. In this analysis, SMUHSD has determined that light trespass would be significant if illuminance produced by the project would exceed 0.8 fc during pre- curfew hours or 0.2 fc during post-curfew hours, as measured on the vertical and horizontal planes at the nearest residential property lines. In comparison with other California school districts’ standards for light trespass, these significance thresholds are relatively conservative and consistent with the San Diego Unified School District’s approach in the Crawford High School and Main Middle School Athletic Facility Upgrade and Modernization Project Draft Environmental Impact Report of May 2014. By contrast, the Glendale Unified School District has applied a higher threshold of light trespass above 2.5 fc on adjacent properties, while the Novato Unified School District has limited light trespass to 2 fc at site boundaries (Glendale Unified School District, 2012; Novato Unified School District, 2006).

To quantify ambient light levels after installation of the proposed stadium lights, this analysis relies on a photometric study prepared in accordance with industry standards by Musco Sports Lighting, LLC, for the applicant in November 2015 and January 2016 (see Appendix B). Photometric studies report how much light (brightness) a specific lamp, fixture, or group of fixtures, would generate at a specific point. The Musco photometric study estimates the vertical

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-11 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

and horizontal foot-candles generated by proposed stadium lighting both within the athletic fields and at the nearest residential property lines.

Glare Impacts. This analysis makes a reasonable assumption that light intensity is representative of the amount of discomfort glare that residents near the stadium sites would experience, because the visibility of a distant light source is proportional to its intensity (Hiscocks, 2011). The Musco photometric study estimates the amount of discomfort glare to which a viewer would be subjected when facing the brightest light source in any direction, using candelas as a measure of luminous intensity. The amount of candelas depends on the luminous power per unit solid angle emitted by a point light source in a particular direction. In layman’s terms, the degree of discomfort glare decreases the further that a viewer is located from a light source, due to the dispersion of light across distance.

This analysis assumes that a light intensity of 500 candelas or less at school property lines facing residences would result in no discomfort glare. In addition, the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) has set limits on candelas from outdoor lighting installations for lighting zones from E1 to E4 (CIE, 2003). In the E3 lighting zone, which applies to the stadium sites, the CIE finds that light intensity from luminaires may not exceed 10,000 candelas during pre-curfew hours or 1,000 candelas during post-curfew hours. These limits apply to each light source in directions where views of bright light sources are likely to be troublesome to residents but not where momentary or short-term viewing is involved.

Sky Glow. Sky glow impacts would be significant if the proposed lighting would emit a substantial amount of upward light, increasing the brightness of the sky during nighttime hours.

b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact AES-1 The addition of lights and light poles at the five stadiums would incrementally alter views of and through each of the stadium sites. However, because light poles would not block views of scenic resources from any identified scenic view location, impacts to scenic vistas at all five sites would be less than significant.

The addition of lights and light poles would incrementally alter existing views of and through each of the five stadium sites. A description of the impacts to views for each of the alternatives is included below.

Aragon High School Site. The Aragon High School site is approximately ¼ mile from State Route 92, 1.4 miles from U.S. 101, and 2.1 miles from Interstate 280 (I-280). Distance and existing trees and vegetation would obscure the proposed light poles from these highways. Consequently, the project would have no effect on views from any highway.

This site is within an existing residential neighborhood characterized by gently rolling terrain. Stadium light poles would be visible from adjacent streets such as Alameda de las Pulgas as well as from nearby residences, particularly those immediately south of the site along the north side of Hobart Avenue. As shown on Figure 4.1-1 (Photo 1), the stadium site is partially shielded from view from Alameda de las Pulgas by the site’s elevation above the street level and by existing landscaping, but the tops of light poles along the east side of the stadium (30 to

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-12 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

80 feet in height) would be visible. As shown on Figure 4.1-1 (Photo 2), the residences immediately south of the site have unobstructed views of the stadium and all light poles would be clearly visible. However, the poles are narrow and would only occupy a sliver of the overall views through the site. The poles would have minimal impact to the overall viewshed from surrounding properties and would not block views of any identified scenic resources since none are present in the area. Consequently, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Capuchino High School Site. The Capuchino High School site is slightly over ½ mile from U.S. 101 and about one mile from I-280. Distance and intervening landscaping and development would block views of the proposed light poles from both of these highways. Consequently, the project would have no effect on views from either highway.

This site is within a residential neighborhood characterized by gently rolling terrain. Stadium light poles would be visible from adjacent streets such as Barcelona Drive and Park Boulevard as well as from nearby residences, particularly those immediately west of the site along the east side of Park Boulevard. As shown on Figure 4.1-2 (Photos 1 and 2), existing trees partially block views of the stadium site from Barcelona Drive; nevertheless, the 30- to 80-foot light poles would be visible. As shown on Figure 4.1-2 (Photos 3 and 4), residences north and west of the site have generally unobstructed views of the stadium and light poles would be clearly visible. However, the poles would have minimal impact to the overall viewshed from surrounding properties and would not block views of any identified scenic resources since none are present in the area. Consequently, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Hillsdale High School Site. The Aragon High School site is approximately one mile from State Route 92 and 1.4 miles from U.S. 101. Light poles may be partially visible from portions of State Route 92, but the relatively long distance and presence of intervening development would minimize the impacts on the viewshed. Distance, freeway sound walls, flat terrain, and intervening development would all limit the visibility of light poles from U.S. 101. Impacts to views from both highways would be less than significant.

This site is within a relatively flat existing residential neighborhood. Stadium light poles would be visible from immediately adjacent streets such as Alameda de las Pulgas and 31st Street as well as from nearby residences, particularly those immediately east and north of the site along these two roads. As shown on Figure 4.1-3 (Photos 1 and 2), the stadium site has largely unobstructed views from immediately adjacent areas to the east and north. In addition, as shown on Figure 4.1-3 (Photos 3 and 4), residential areas to the south and west are elevated, thus affording unobstructed views of the stadium and the proposed light poles. The poles would also be clearly visible from portions of Laurelwood Park, located roughly ½ mile southwest of the site. Nevertheless, the poles would have minimal impact to the overall viewshed from affected roads and properties and, due to their limited diameter, would not substantially block views of or from hillsides south and west of the site. Consequently, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Mills High School Site. The Mills High School site is about ¾ mile from U.S. 101 and about one mile from I-280. Freeway landscaping, topography, and intervening development would block views of the proposed light poles from both highways. Consequently, the project would have no effect on views from either highway.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-13 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

This site is within a mixed residential and commercial neighborhood characterized by gently rolling terrain. Stadium light poles would be visible from adjacent streets such as Millbrae Avenue to the northwest, Sequoia Avenue to the southwest, and South Magnolia Avenue to the northeast. They would also be visible from residences along all three roads. As shown on Figure 4.1-4 (Photo 1), residences south of the site are elevated above the school site. Thus, some residences could have unobstructed views of the light poles. As shown on Figure 4.1-4 (Photos 2, 3, and 4), residences immediately northeast and northwest of the site would also have relatively unobstructed views toward the stadium site. The 30- and 80-foot light poles would be visible from adjacent roads and properties. However, the poles would have minimal impact to the overall viewshed from surrounding properties and, due to their limited diameter, would not block views of or from nearby hillside areas. Consequently, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

San Mateo High School Site. The San Mateo High School site is about ¼ mile from U.S. 101 and about three miles from I-280. Intervening landscaping and development would block views of the proposed light poles from U.S. 101. Freeway landscaping would block views from I-280, while distance would minimize the effect of poles where limited views of the site are available. Consequently, the project would have no effect on views from either highway.

This site is within a relatively flat residential neighborhood. Stadium light poles would be visible from adjacent streets such as North Delaware Street to the southwest and North Humboldt Street to the northeast. They would also be visible from residences along both of these streets as well as from the Woodlake Apartments located immediately northwest of the stadium site. As shown on Figure 4.1-5 (Photo 1), existing school buildings would partially block views toward the site from North Delaware Street. As shown on Figure 4.1-5 (Photo 2), views from the stadium site from North Humboldt Street are unobstructed. As shown on Figure 4.1-5 (Photos 3 and 4), mature trees between the stadium site and the Woodlake Apartments partially block views of the stadium from that location. Nevertheless, the 30- to 80- foot light poles would be visible from adjacent properties in all directions. However, the poles would have minimal impact to the overall viewshed from surrounding properties and would not block views of any identified scenic resources since the site vicinity is flat and does not afford views of any identified scenic resources. Consequently, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures. None required.

Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact AES-2 The proposed light poles would incrementally alter aesthetic conditions at each of the five high schools. However, light poles would not conflict with the visual character of the stadiums and would have a negligible effect on the overall visual character and quality of the five schools. Impacts would be less than significant for each of the five stadium sites.

Implementation of the stadium improvement project would incrementally alter the existing visual character the five stadium sites. A description of the impacts to visual character for each of the project sites is included below.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-14 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Aragon High School Site. The Aragon High School site is an established stadium with an athletic field, track, and bleachers. The proposed light poles would be visible from surrounding properties and roads (as discussed in Impact AES-1) and would minimally change the overall visual character of the stadium, but would be visually compatible with the stadium’s current character. The mass, materials, architectural style, and surface treatments of the poles would be typical of elements commonly seen at sports stadiums. Consequently, the impact to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.

Capuchino High School Site. The Capuchino High School site is an established stadium with an athletic field, track, and bleachers. The proposed light poles would be visible from surrounding properties and roads (as discussed in Impact AES-1). The poles would minimally change the visual character of the stadium, but similar to the Aragon High School site would be visually compatible with the stadium’s current character. Consequently, the impact to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.

Hillsdale High School Site. The Capuchino High School site is an established stadium with an athletic field, track, and bleachers. The proposed light poles would be visible from immediately surrounding properties and roads as well as from the higher elevation properties, including Laurelwood Park, approximately ½ mile to the south (as discussed in Impact AES-1). The light poles would minimally change the visual character of the stadium, but similar to the Aragon High School site would be visually compatible with the stadium’s current character. Consequently, the impact to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.

Mills High School Site. The Mills High School site is an established stadium with an athletic field, track, and bleachers. The proposed light poles would be visible from immediately surrounding properties and roads as well as from the higher elevation properties located south of the stadium site (as discussed in Impact AES-1). The light poles would minimally change the visual character of the stadium, but similar to the Aragon High School site would be visually compatible with the stadium’s current character. Consequently, the impact to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.

San Mateo High School Site. The San Mateo High School site is an established stadium with an athletic field, track, and bleachers. Although the stadium site is partially blocked from view from many vantage points by existing buildings and mature trees, the proposed light poles would be visible from immediately surrounding properties (as discussed in Impact AES- 1). The light poles would minimally change the visual character of the stadium, but similar to the Aragon High School site would be visually compatible with the stadium’s current character. Consequently, the impact to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures. None required.

Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to visual character/quality would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact AES-3 The proposed project would replace existing portable lighting used for evening football games at the five school sites with

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-15 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

new permanent stadium lighting used for sporting events and practices that would be used substantially more frequently than the portable lights. However, new sources of light at each stadium would be focused on the athletic field and would not result in light trespass exceeding IESNA standards for illuminance in residential areas. Illuminance during sporting events is estimated at approximately 0.0 horizontal and vertical foot-candles at neighboring residences, which would not substantially contribute to light levels. Therefore, lighting impacts around all stadium sites would be less than significant.

The proposed project would introduce new permanent lighting systems at the five stadium sites, replacing existing portable lighting used for evening home football games. Table 4.1-1 compares the physical features and frequency of use of existing portable and proposed lighting systems at the stadiums.

Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Stadium Lighting Systems Lighting Feature Existing Proposed Height of Lights 30 feet Approximately 20 to 80 feet Number of Light Poles per Field 10 portable poles 8 tall poles (up to 80 feet in height) Up to 18 short poles (up to approximately 30 feet in height) Lumens per Pole 440,000 lumens At 80 feet: 457,800 to 588,600 lumens At 50-70 feet: up to 77,200 lumens At 20-30 feet: 38,600 lumens Total: up to 704,400 lumens Lighting Type Metal halide LED 5700K1 Frequency of Use Evening football games Evening football games, evening non-football games, evening school activities, evening athletic practice, community athletic games, community morning track use 1 LED 5700K = light emitting diode with a bluish white color temperature of 5700 Kelvin.

As shown in Table 4.1-1, the proposed primary LED light fixtures (eight per stadium) would be substantially taller than the existing 30-foot portable metal halide lights, rising to 80 feet in height. Downward-facing luminaires would be affixed at a height of approximately 80 feet on each pole to illuminate stadiums during sport competitions, practices, and other events. Additional downward-facing luminaires may be mounted at 50 to 70 feet on some poles in order to provide consistent, even lighting. Lower-output, upward-facing luminaires would be mounted at 20 feet on each pole in order to illuminate airborne objects such as footballs during punts and kickoffs and soccer balls. A second set of lower-output LED luminaires would be installed on up to 18 new and existing poles, each up to approximately 30 feet tall. These egress and clean-up lighting system poles would be spaced evenly around the perimeter of each track and also along pathways leading to ADA-compliant accessible parking spaces.

Although the project would introduce new permanent lighting systems that would be used substantially more frequently than the portable lights are used under existing conditions, the

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-16 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

proposed lighting has been designed to minimize light trespass and would be operated during restricted time frames before normal sleeping hours. First, the approximate 80-foot height of the brightest stadium lights would enable each luminaire to be mounted with a narrow beam angle, which would focus light downward while still covering the athletic field, thereby limiting light trespass at off-site residences. The proposed light fixtures also would feature highly efficient reflectors and visors to block upward light from the brightest fixtures. While lower-output luminaires mounted at 20 feet on each pole would cast light upward, these fixtures would only be lit for brief periods including punts and kickoffs during football games and during soccer matches. As shown in Table 4.1-1, the proposed stadium lights also would be used more often than the existing portable lights but only during certain events, with the main lights turned off at set times:

• Friday evening football games (a maximum of eight games including playoffs) until 9:40 PM; • Scheduled evening non-football games on Mondays through Thursdays until 8:40 PM and Fridays until 9:40 PM; • Evening school activities (up to four per year) during weekdays until 8:30 PM; • Scheduled evening athletic practice on school nights until 8:30 PM; • Community athletic games year-round on Mondays through Saturdays until 8:30 PM; and • Community morning track use throughout the week during winter.

The main stadium lights would be turned off by 9:40 PM or earlier, minimizing the exposure of nearby residents to nighttime lighting that could potentially disturb sleep. While games that extend to overtime could potentially run past this cutoff time, requiring the continued use of main stadium lights beyond 9:40 PM, such occurrences would be rare. Lighting would not be turned on during the IESNA’s post-curfew hours of 10:00 PM or later.

Nevertheless, the proposed lighting systems would produce illuminance in and around the stadiums during their hours of use. An analysis of illuminance and lighting impacts at each stadium follows, based on the photometric study prepared by Musco Sports Lighting, LLC (Appendix B to this EIR). For comparison with estimated light levels from the proposed stadium lights, Table 4.1-2 lists examples of illuminance from common light sources.

Table 4.1-2 Illuminance from Common Light Sources Light Source Illuminance Direct sunlight 3,200 to 13,000 fc Daylight 1,000 to 2,500 fc Retail store 50 fc Sunrise on a clear day 40 fc Office 32 fc Roadway lighting 0.3 to 1.6 fc Full moon 0.027 fc 1. fc = foot-candles Source: Hiscocks, Peter. Measuring Light. January 2011.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-17 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Table 4.1-3 presents an overview of estimated light levels from the photometric study within each athletic field and at the nearest residential property lines. These light levels are estimated based on the proposed stadium light sources and would be additional to existing ambient light levels around the project sites. Because the design of the proposed lighting systems would minimize light trespass to nearby residences while providing adequate lighting on-site for sporting events, the maximum illuminance from proposed lights at residential property lines facing the stadiums would not exceed approximately 0.0 fc. This offsite illuminance from stadium lighting would be less than is typical of existing roadway lighting (0.3 to 1.6 fc).

Table 4.1-3 Estimated Illuminance at Stadium Sites Maximum Horizontal Maximum Illuminance at Nearest Stadium Site Illuminance on Athletic Field Residential Property Lines Aragon Hill School 49 fc approximately 0.0 fc Capuchino High School 51 fc approximately 0.0 fc Hillsdale High School 52 fc approximately 0.0 fc Mills High School 48 fc approximately 0.0 fc San Mateo High School 48 fc approximately 0.0 fc Source: Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. Appendix B. January 2016.

Aragon High School Site. The proposed stadium lighting at Aragon High School would generate an estimated 34 to 49 horizontal foot-candles on the athletic field during sporting events. However, lighting would be focused on the athletic field such that residences across Alameda de las Pulgas to the northeast and along Hobart Avenue to the southeast would not be subject to additional illuminance above approximately 0.0 fc. Horizontal and vertical foot- candles at the nearest residential property lines would not exceed 0.0 fc.

Capuchino High School Site. The proposed stadium lighting at Capuchino High School would generate an estimated 34 to 51 horizontal foot-candles on the athletic field during sporting events. However, additional illuminance at the nearest residences on Park Boulevard to the west and Barcelona Drive to the south would not exceed approximately 0.0 horizontal or vertical foot-candles. Although SMUHSD would be exempt from lighting standards in local zoning ordinances pursuant to Government Code Section 53094, the proposed security lighting would nevertheless be consistent with Section 23.54.060 of the San Bruno Municipal Code, which requires that exterior security lighting be designed to limit light trespass and to shield the light source from view from offsite.

Hillsdale High School Site. The proposed stadium lighting at Hillsdale High School would generate an estimated 34 to 52 horizontal foot-candles on the athletic field during sporting events. However, additional illuminance at the nearest residences on Alameda de las Pulgas to the east and West Hillsdale Boulevard to the south would not exceed approximately 0.0 horizontal or vertical foot-candles. Furthermore, an existing wooden fence between one- story houses on West Hillsdale Boulevard and the school site would largely obstruct incident light from the stadiums.

Mills High School Site. The proposed stadium lighting at Mills High School would generate an estimated 33 to 48 horizontal foot-candles on the athletic field during sporting

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-18 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

events. However, additional illuminance at the nearest residences on Millbrae Avenue to the northwest would not exceed approximately 0.0 horizontal or vertical foot-candles.

San Mateo High School Site. The proposed stadium lighting at San Mateo High School would generate an estimated 34 to 48 horizontal foot-candles on the athletic field and 5 to 28 horizontal foot-candles on the track during football games. However, additional illuminance at the nearest residences on North Delaware Street to the southwest and apartments to the northwest would not exceed approximately 0.0 horizontal or vertical foot-candles.

In summary, the proposed stadium lights would not generate illuminance exceeding approximately 0.0 horizontal or vertical foot-candles at the property line of residences facing the school sites. Therefore, the project would not generate additional lighting in excess of the IESNA’s standard of 0.8 fc during pre-curfew hours or 0.2 fc during post-curfew hours in the E3 lighting zone. Impacts from light trespass onto nearby light-sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact AES-4 Although the proposed stadium lights would be visible from nearby residences, they would not generate light intensity in excess of the CIE’s international standards for the E3 lighting zone at residential property lines facing the stadiums. Therefore, impacts from glare would be less than significant.

The proposed stadium lights would generate light intensity on-site and at nearby residences. Light intensity at sports facilities can cause discomfort glare, an annoying or painful sensation when exposed to a bright light in the field of view (Shuster, 2014). Estimated light intensity at residential property lines facing each stadium, as projected in the photometric study prepared by Musco Sports Lighting, LLC, is discussed below. Project glare impacts around each stadium are mapped in the photometric study in Appendix B.

Aragon High School Site. During athletic events, new lighting at the Aragon High School stadium would generate light intensity up to an estimated 638 candelas at residential property lines on Hobart Avenue to the southeast and 137 candelas at residential property lines across Alameda de las Pulgas to the northeast. These predicted increases in candelas would be in addition to ambient levels of light. The light intensity from stadium lights is expected to exceed 500 candelas in the backyards of two residences on Hobart Avenue, which could cause discomfort glare to people looking toward Aragon High School from those yards. However, light intensity would drop to less than 250 candelas at the exterior wall of the nearest residences on Hobart Avenue. Therefore, residents within their homes are not expected to experience discomfort glare from stadium lighting. Furthermore, light intensity would not exceed the CIE’s limits of 10,000 candelas during pre-curfew hours or 1,000 candelas during post-curfew hours in the E3 lighting zone. Therefore, impacts from glare around Aragon High School would be less than significant.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-19 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

Capuchino High School Site. New lighting at the Capuchino High School stadium would generate light intensity up to an estimated 823 candelas at residential property lines on Barcelona Drive to the south and 44 candelas at residential property lines on Park Boulevard to the west. These predicted increases in candelas would be in addition to ambient levels of light. At the front façades of two residences on Barcelona Drive, to the east of Capuchino Drive, light intensity may exceed 500 candelas. Residents at these homes may experience a small degree of discomfort glare during evening athletic events at the stadium. However, light intensity at nearby residences would not exceed the CIE’s limits of 10,000 candelas during pre-curfew hours or 1,000 candelas during post-curfew hours in the E3 lighting zone. Therefore, while SMUHSD would be exempt from local zoning ordinances, the project nevertheless would be consistent with Section 7.16.030 of the San Bruno Municipal Code by not generating “intense glare that unreasonably affects use and enjoyment of neighboring property.” Impacts from glare around Capuchino High School would be less than significant.

Hillsdale High School Site. New lighting at the Hillsdale High School stadium would generate light intensity up to an estimated 387 candelas at residential property lines on Alameda de las Pulgas to the east and zero candelas at residential property lines at West Hillsdale Boulevard to the south. These predicted increases in candelas would be in addition to ambient levels of light. Because light intensity would not exceed 500 candelas at nearby homes, residents are not expected to experience discomfort glare from stadium lighting. Furthermore, light intensity would not exceed the CIE’s limits of 10,000 candelas during pre-curfew hours or 1,000 candelas during post-curfew hours in the E3 lighting zone. Therefore, impacts from glare around Hillsdale High School would be less than significant.

Mills High School Site. New lighting at the Mills High School stadium would generate light intensity up to an estimated 16 candelas at residential property lines on Millbrae Avenue to the northwest. This predicted increase in candelas would be in addition to ambient levels of light. Residences on South Magnolia Avenue to the northeast, due to their distance from the stadium, would not have direct views of new light sources. Because light intensity would not exceed 500 candelas at nearby homes, residents are not expected to experience discomfort glare from stadium lighting. Furthermore, light intensity would not exceed the CIE’s limits of 10,000 candelas during pre-curfew hours or 1,000 candelas during post-curfew hours in the E3 lighting zone. Therefore, impacts from glare around Mills High School would be less than significant.

San Mateo High School Site. New lighting at the San Mateo High School stadium would generate light intensity up to an estimated 924 candelas at residential property lines on North Delaware Street to the southwest and up to 740 candelas at the property line of apartment buildings to the northwest. These predicted increases in candelas would be in addition to ambient levels of light. At the front façades of residences on North Delaware Street, light intensity may exceed 500 candelas. Similarly, apartment units facing the stadium could be subject to light intensity greater than 500 candelas. These residents could experience a small degree of discomfort glare during evening athletic events at the stadium. However, light intensity at nearby residences would not exceed the CIE’s limits of 10,000 candelas during pre- curfew hours or 1,000 candelas during post-curfew hours in the E3 lighting zone. Therefore, impacts from glare around San Mateo High School would be less than significant.

In summary, the photometric study prepared by Musco Sports Lighting, LLC, indicates that proposed lighting systems would not generate substantial discomfort glare at nearby residences around the five stadiums. Furthermore, the proposed lighting systems may improve

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-20 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

glare conditions relative to existing 30-foot portable lights used during evening football games. Due to their elevated position approximately 80 feet high, the brightest stadium lights would be cast downward with a narrower beam angle, thereby limiting light trespass at off-site residences. The proposed light fixtures also would feature highly efficient reflectors and a visor to block upward light on the brightest fixtures. While lower-output luminaires mounted at 20 feet on each pole would cast light upward, these fixtures would only be lit for brief periods including punts and kickoffs during football games and during soccer games. The upward- facing lights also would not be directed laterally toward adjacent residences, which would prevent direct views of these light sources from sensitive receptors. In addition, new lights would be operated during restricted time frames and turned off before 9:40 PM, minimizing disturbance during normal sleeping hours. Therefore, glare impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact AES-5 The proposed stadium lights would be shielded and designed to reduce light trespass beyond the school sites. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase sky glow. Impacts from sky glow would be less than significant.

As discussed in Impact AES-3, the proposed stadium lighting has been designed to minimize light trespass. The approximate 80-foot height of the brightest stadium lights would enable each luminaire to be mounted with a narrow beam angle, which would focus light downward, thereby limiting light trespass outside the athletic fields and reducing sky glow. The proposed light fixtures also would feature highly efficient reflectors and a visor to block upward light. Although lower-output luminaires would be mounted facing upward at 20 feet on each light pole and would incrementally increase sky glow when in use by reflecting light off clouds and aerosols, these lights would only be used for short durations to illuminate airborne objects such as footballs during punts and kickoffs and soccer balls. Furthermore, the use of all stadium lights would be limited to certain athletic events, and lights would always be cut off by 9:40 PM in the evening. Because the proposed stadium lights would be cut off before the IESNA’s curfew hours of 10:00 PM, they would not substantially contribute to sky glow during sensitive nighttime hours. The cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and San Mateo also do not have pristine nighttime skies that are sensitive to additional artificial light because these urban communities have existing sky glow from sources in their vicinity such as San Francisco International Airport, commercial lights in the El Camino Real corridor, and the San Mateo Bridge on State Route 92. Therefore, the proposed stadium lights would not substantially contribute to sky glow near the school sites, and impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts. As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, proposed and pending development in the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and San Mateo, and surrounding areas would include approximately 942,900 square feet of non-residential development and 481 residential units. Cumulative development near the school sites would continue to alter the aesthetic character of the City, with the introduction of new mixed-use development, commercial retail and office uses, greater development intensity and larger structures. The aesthetic impacts of individual development projects can often be mitigated through careful site

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-21 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics

design, avoidance of significant visual features, and appropriate building and landscape standards. Furthermore, cumulative development would not substantially alter the existing character of primarily single-family residential neighborhoods surrounding school sites. The proposed lighting and PA systems at school sites also would not represent an increase in development intensity in these areas. In addition, as discussed in Impacts AES-3 through AES- 5, the stadium lighting systems would be designed to minimize light trespass and glare and would not substantially contribute to nighttime sky glow in the area. Therefore, cumulative impacts for aesthetics would be less than significant and the project’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.1-22 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

4.2 AIR QUALITY

This section discusses the project’s potential impacts to regional and local air quality. Both temporary impacts related to construction and long-term impacts associated with the project are discussed. Traffic projections used in emissions estimates are based on the Transportation Impact Analysis Administrative Draft Report prepared by DKS dated March 14, 2016. The traffic study is included as Appendix F to this EIR.

4.2.1 Setting

a. Regional Climate and Meteorology. California’s weather is heavily influenced by a semi-permanent high-pressure system west of the Pacific. San Mateo County is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). Air quality in the SFBAAB is affected by the emission sources located in the region, as well as by natural factors. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed and direction, air temperature gradients, and local and regional topography influence air quality. The SFBAAB is affected by a Mediterranean climate of warm, dry summers and cool, damp winters. During the summer, maximum temperatures are about 64°F along the coast, and about 88°F farther inland. In winter, average minimum temperatures are in the low to mid-40s along the coast and in the low to mid-30s inland (Life Science!, Inc., 2004).

Topographical features, the location of the Pacific high-pressure system, and varying circulation patterns resulting from temperature gradients affect the speed and direction of local winds. The winds play a major role in the dispersion of pollutants. Strong winds can carry pollutants far from their source; a lack of wind will allow pollutants to concentrate in an area (Life Science!, Inc., 2004).

Air dispersion also affects pollutant concentrations. As altitude increases, air temperature normally decreases. Inversions occur when colder air becomes trapped below warmer air, restricting the air masses’ ability to mix. Pollutants also become trapped, which promotes the production of secondary pollutants. Subsidence inversions, which can occur during the summer in the SFBAAB, result from high-pressure cells that cause the local air mass to sink, compress, and become warmer than the air closer to the earth. Pollutants accumulate as this stagnating air mass remains in place for 1 or more days (Life Science!, Inc., 2004).

b. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern. The state and federal Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these Acts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for certain “criteria” pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations are affected by the rates and distributions of corresponding air pollutant emissions, as well as by the climactic and topographic influences discussed above. The primary determinant of concentrations of non-reactive pollutants (such as carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter) is proximity to major sources. Ambient CO levels in particular usually closely follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. A discussion of primary criteria pollutants is provided below.

Ozone. Ozone is a colorless gas with a pungent odor. Most ozone in the atmosphere is formed as a result of the interaction of ultraviolet light, reactive organic gases (ROG), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). ROG (the organic compound fraction relevant to ozone formation,

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

and sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this analysis to volatile organic compounds, or VOC1) is composed of non-methane hydrocarbons (with some specific exclusions), and NOX is made of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly NO and NO2. A highly reactive molecule, ozone readily combines with many different components of the atmosphere. Consequently, high levels of ozone tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX levels are present to sustain the ozone formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, ozone levels rapidly decline. Because these reactions occur on a regional rather than local scale, ozone is considered a regional pollutant.

Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless, gas. CO causes a number of health problems including fatigue, headache, confusion, and dizziness. The incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels in on-road vehicles and at power plants is a major cause of CO. CO is also produced during the winter from wood stoves and fireplaces. CO tends to dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere; consequently, violations of the State CO standard are generally associated with major roadway intersections during peak hour traffic conditions.

Localized carbon monoxide “hotspots” can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the State AAQS of 20.0 ppm.

Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.

Suspended Particulates. PM10 is small particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates and sulfates. They are a by-product of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and are directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulates (PM2.5) can be very different. The small particulates generally come from windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. The fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.

1 ROG is equivalent to volatile organic compounds (VOC) per MBUAPCD Rule 101, 2.32

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

Lead. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. The major sources of lead emissions historically have been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, as discussed below, metal processing currently is the primary source of lead emissions. The highest level of lead in the air is generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

In the early 1970s, the US EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. US EPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995.2 As a result of US EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Lead emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries at least in part as a result of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (US EPA, 2013).

c. Current Ambient Air Quality. CARB and the EPA establish ambient air quality standards for major pollutants at thresholds intended to protect public health. Federal and State standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and fine particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Standards have been set at levels intended to be protective of public health. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards for each of these pollutants except for lead and the eight-hour average for CO.

Local air districts and CARB monitor ambient air quality to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, to also develop strategies to meet the standards. Air quality monitoring stations measure pollutant ground-level concentrations (typically, ten feet aboveground level). Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” Some areas are unclassified, which means no monitoring data are available. Unclassified areas are considered to be in attainment. Table 4.2-1 summarizes the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each of these pollutants as well as the attainment status of the SFBAAB.

2 40 CRF Part 80

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards & Basin Attainment Status California Standards National Standards Averaging Attainment Attainment Pollutant Time Concentration Status Concentration Status 8 Hour 0.070 ppm N 0.075 ppm N Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm N 8 Hour 9.0 ppm A 9 ppm A Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 20 ppm A 35 ppm A 1 Hour 0.18 ppm A 0.100 ppm U Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm A Arithmetic Mean 24 Hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm A 1 Hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm A Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm A Arithmetic Mean

Annual 3 20 µg/m N Particulate Matter Arithmetic Mean (PM10) 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 N 150 µg/m3 U

Annual 3 3 12 µg/m N 15 µg/m U/A Particulate Matter Arithmetic Mean - Fine (PM2.5) 24 Hour 35 µg/m3 N Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 A

Calendar 3 1.5 µg/m A Quarter

Lead Rolling 3 Month 3 0.15 µg/m Average 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3) A Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm U Vinyl Chloride No information 24 Hour 0.010 ppm (chloroethene) available Visibility Reducing 8 Hour(10:00 U particles to18:00 PST)

A=Attainment N=Nonattainment U=Unclassified; mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter ppm=parts per million µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Website, April 2015: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air- quality-standards-and-attainment-status

As shown in Table 4.2-1, the SFBAAB is in nonattainment for the federal and state standards for ozone, as well as the state standard for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and the federal standard for 24 hour PM2.5.

As indicated in Table 4.2-2, the PM10 24-hour air quality standard was exceeded one time in 2012 and the PM2.5 24-hour air quality standard was exceeded three times in 2013. The standards for CO, NO2, and ozone have not been exceeded in the last three years.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

Table 4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Data Pollutant 2012 2013 2014

aOzone, ppm - Worst Hour 0.063 0.083 0.086

Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0

Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.12 ppm) 0 0 0

aCarbon Monoxide, ppm - Worst 8 Hours 1.81 n/a n/a

Number of days of State/Federal exceedances (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0

aNitrogen Dioxide, ppm - Worst Hour 0.0604 0.0538 0.0552

Number of days of State exceedances (>0.25 ppm) 0 0 0

bParticulate Matter <10 microns, µg/m3 Worst 24 Hours 50.6 44.3 35.9

Number of samples of State exceedances (>50 µg/m3 ) 0 0 0

Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>150 µg/m3 ) 1 0 0

aParticulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3 Worst 24 Hours 33.3 39.0 35.0

Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>35 µg/m3 ) 0 3 0

a Redwood City Monitoring Station b San Francisco-Arkansas Street Source: CARB, 2012, 2013, & 2014 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php

d. Regulatory Setting. The Federal Clean Air Act governs air quality in the United States. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act. At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA is administered by the CARB at the State level and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. The BAAQMD regulates air quality at the regional level, which includes the nine-county Bay Area.

Federal. The EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal CAA. The EPA is also responsible for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are required under the 1977 CAA and subsequent amendments. The EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g. beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards established by the CARB.

State. In California, the CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for meeting the State requirements of the federal CAA, administering the California CAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California CAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. The CAAQS are generally more

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. The CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. The CARB established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective on March 1996. The CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level.

Regional. The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. The BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area, including San Mateo County.

The BAAQMD, along with the other regional agencies (such as the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG] and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC]), has prepared the Ozone Attainment Plan to address the federal standard for ozone. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is the most recently approved regional Clean Air Plan (CAP). It was adopted in September 2010 and updated the Bay Area ozone plan. This plan provides an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. The plan is designed to provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan. The 2010 Clean Air Plan included Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) from the 2005 Ozone Strategy measures that were modified and expanded based on new investment and policy decisions as well as public input. In particular, the TCMs have been updated to reflect the policy and investment decisions made in the Metropolitans Transportation Commission’s (MTC) regional transportation plan, Transportation 2035: Change in Motion. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is also based on population and employment forecasts from ABAG).

e. Sensitive Receptors near Project Sites. The ambient air quality standards described above were established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under 14; the elderly over 65; persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise; and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The majority of sensitive receptor locations are therefore residences, schools and hospitals. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of each of the campuses are identified below.

Aragon High School Site. Aragon High School is located at 900 Alameda de las Pulgas in the City of San Mateo. The school was established in 1961 and currently enrolls approximately 1,420 students. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single-family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 130 feet northeast of the edge of the stadium. The only adjacent non-residential land use is Baywood Elementary School, which is located to the northwest across Woodland Drive.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

Capuchino High School Site. Capuchino High School is located at 1501 Magnolia Boulevard in the City of San Bruno. The school opened in 1950 and currently enrolls approximately 1,100 students. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single-family residences. A few multi-family residences border the school to the east. The nearest residence is located approximately 170 feet south of the edge of the stadium.

Hillsdale High School Site. Hillsdale High School is located at 3115 Del Monte Street in the City of San Mateo. The school was established in 1955 and currently enrolls approximately 1,350 students. The school is surrounded entirely by single-family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Abbott Middle School is located approximately 400 feet to the southeast, across West Hillsdale Boulevard.

Mills High School Site. Mills High School is located at 400 Murchison Drive in the City of Millbrae. The school was founded in 1958 and currently enrolls approximately 1,210 students. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the southwest, multi-family residences to the northwest, northeast, and southeast, and commercial land uses to the east. A narrow strip of open space that includes a public trail separates the school and stadium from Millbrae Avenue and the multi-family residences to the northwest. The nearest residence is located approximately 190 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Spring Valley Elementary School is located approximately 500 feet to the south.

San Mateo High School Site. San Mateo High School is located at 506 North Delaware Street in the City of San Mateo. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the northeast, multi-family residences to the northwest and southwest, and institutional land uses to the southeast. The nearest residence is the Woodlake Apartments, which are located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. College Park Elementary School is located directly to the southeast, across East Poplar Avenue. The Caltrain right-of-way is located approximately 500 feet to the southwest.

4.2.2 Impact Analysis

a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which were again updated in May 2011. These guidelines describe the criteria that the BAAQMD proposed for use when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of documents prepared under CEQA. The updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include recommended thresholds for use by Bay Area lead agencies in determining whether the proposed projects would have significant adverse air quality impacts, methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and recommended measures that can be used to avoid or reduce significant air quality impacts.

This analysis uses the methodologies and thresholds in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines as a reasonable approach to assessing the significance of impacts in light of the information and analysis presented in the Thresholds of Significance Justification prepared by BAAQMD staff, which is Appendix D to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Significance Thresholds. Air quality impacts of the proposed project would be significant if they would exceed the following thresholds of significance, which are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the May 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-7 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on local or regional air quality if it would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A of this EIR), the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts related to Thresholds 1 and 5 would be less than significant and are not discussed further in this section; the analysis that follows focuses on the other remaining impact criteria listed above (Thresholds 2, 3, and 4).

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines quantify these thresholds with defined numeric values and evaluation criteria for pollutant emissions. As noted above, although the Court of Appeal ruling with respect to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines has been appealed and the Supreme Court has granted the petition for review, the City has decided that it will use the methodological approach and numeric thresholds in BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to determine whether the impacts of the proposed project exceed the thresholds identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD’s evaluation criteria for determining air quality impacts provide defined thresholds for pollutant emissions. These quantitative thresholds for air quality impact evaluation from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are presented below.

Construction Emissions. Impacts related to construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be significant if the construction emissions exceeded the following thresholds:

• 54 pounds per day of ROG • 54 pounds per day of NOX • 82 pounds per day of PM10 (exhaust) • 54 pounds per day of PM2.5 (exhaust)

Operational Emissions. Impacts from direct and/or indirect operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be significant if they exceeded the following daily or the annual emissions thresholds:

• 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per year of ROG • 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per year of NOX • 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10 • 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per year of PM2.5

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-8 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

Direct emissions are those that are emitted on a site and include emissions from stationary sources and on-site mobile equipment, if applicable. Examples of land uses and activities that generate direct emissions are industrial operations and sources subject to an operating permit from the BAAQMD. Indirect emissions come from mobile sources that access the project site, but generally are emitted off-site. For many types of land development projects, the principal source of air pollutant emissions is the motor vehicle trips generated by the project.

Construction Emissions Methodology. The project involves installation of stadium pole lighting at five high schools within San Mateo Unified High School District (SMUHSD). The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2013.2.2) was used to estimate air pollutant emissions associated with project construction. Construction activities associated with this development would result in temporary air quality impacts that may vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Construction activities associated with development would generate diesel emissions and dust. Construction equipment that would generate criteria air pollutants includes excavators, graders, cement trucks, and drill rigs. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered. Electrically-powered equipment would not result in criteria pollutant or ozone precursor emissions. Therefore, the assumption that equipment would be diesel powered represents a worst-reasonable-case assumption for project construction activity.

Operational Emissions Methodology. Operational emissions include mobile source emissions, which are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project sites associated with operation of the stadium lighting. Mobile source emissions were calculated using the Emission Factors (EMFAC) model developed by the California Air Resources Board and trip generation rates from the EIR traffic study (see Section 4.5, Traffic and Transportation). Other operational emissions include energy use (such as natural gas combustion) and area sources such as landscaping equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. These sources are not discussed further, as the project would not result in natural gas combustion or an increase in area source emissions. To determine whether a regional air quality impact would occur, the increase in operational emissions should be compared with the BAAQMD’s recommended regional thresholds for operational emissions.

b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

Impact AQ-1 Project construction would generate temporary increases in localized air pollutant emissions. These emissions would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions. These emissions are associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust from heavy construction vehicles and equipment. The project would be required to comply with all BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding construction emission control measures. Construction would occur over approximately 1 ½ months per campus. However, construction may occur simultaneously at more than one campus. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that no more than two campuses would undergo specific construction components simultaneously and that the

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-9 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

contractor would rotate a single equipment fleet through each of the five campuses, rather than bringing in five identical fleets. Table 4-2.3 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during construction of the stadium lighting at each individual campus.

Table 4-2.3 Estimated Construction Daily Air Pollutant Emissions

Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX

Maximum Daily Emissionsa 1.2 12.2 6.2 0.7 0.6 <0.1

BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A

Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A

a See Table 2.1 “Overall Construction-unmitigated” of Winter emissions CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix C. N/A =

not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX

Table 4-2.4 shows the combined emissions if two campuses complete construction simultaneously.

Table 4-2.4 Estimated Construction Daily Air Pollutant Emissions for Two Campuses Constructed Simultaneously Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX

Maximum Daily Emissionsa 2.4 24.4 12.4 1.4 1.2 <0.1

BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A

Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A

a See Table 2.1 “Overall Construction-unmitigated” of Winter emissions CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix C. N/A =

not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX

As shown in the tables, the BAAQMD thresholds would not be exceeded. Because the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for any pollutant, it would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required.

Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact AQ-2 The project would result in an increase in operational air pollutant emissions from development of stadium lighting at five SMUHSD high schools. However, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for any pollutant and would not

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-10 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

As described in Section 4.2.2(a), long-term regional emissions from the project would be generated by mobile sources. Mobile emissions include the potential emissions generated by the traffic flow to and from the stadium during the times that the lights would be operational. However, this estimate is conservative because the nighttime events that could occur as a result of the project would not be in addition to, but rather instead of existing daytime events. Emissions associated with project-generated daily traffic were estimated based on the trip generation rates provided by DKS (refer to Section 4.5, Traffic and Transportation, and Appendix F). In addition, combustion of any type of fuel emits criteria pollutants directly into the atmosphere; when this occurs on a project site, the project is a direct emission source. Operation of the proposed project would not require the use of a generator. Therefore, direct criteria pollutants would only result from mobile emissions associated with the project. The proposed project would be connected to the electricity grid and operation of the stadium lights would use electricity generated off-site and supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric. The proposed project would indirectly produce criteria pollutant emissions by using electricity; however, electricity suppliers are regulated separately by the BAAQMD as stationary sources. As such, energy emissions are shown as N/A in Table 4.2-5. Complete emissions calculation results and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix C. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the maximum daily operational emissions resulting from the project.

Table 4.2-5 Estimated Project Operational Emissions Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)

Sources ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX

Area N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Energy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Mobile <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total Emissions (lbs/day) <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A

Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A

Source: Calculations were made using EMFAC. See emissions calculations in Appendix C. Tons per year converted to average pounds per day. Note: numbers may not add up due to rounding. No BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX. N/A not applicable. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings and will not be generated by operation the proposed project; additionally, there are no air quality impacts due to electricity as they are emitted elsewhere and air quality is a local issue.

As shown in Table 4.2-5, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant and based on the small amount of emissions relative to the BAAQMD thresholds, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the project involves a construction timeframe of approximately four months or less and does not include any on-site sources of long-term (operational) emissions.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-11 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.2 Air Quality

Consequently, the impact of the proposed project’s operational emissions on regional air quality under Thresholds 3 and 4 would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required.

Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

c. Cumulative Impacts. Completion of the project would include installation of stadium lighting at five high schools in San Mateo County and would not result in a population or housing increase. Based on BAAQMD guidance for Clean Air Plan consistency, the determination that the project would not conflict with or obstruct continued implementation of the 2010 CAP means that the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. The SFBAAB is in nonattainment for the federal and state standards for ozone, as well as the state standard for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and the federal standard for 24 hour PM2.5. Any growth within the SFBAAB would contribute to existing exceedances of ambient air quality standards when taken as a whole with existing development. Because the project would not result in an increase in regional population or other growth that is not anticipated under the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative regional air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.2-12 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

This section discusses the project’s potential impacts related to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and global climate change. Traffic projections used in emissions estimates are based on the Transportation Impact Analysis Administrative Draft Report prepared by DKS dated March 14, 2016. The traffic study is included as Appendix F to this EIR.

4.3.1 Setting

a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases. Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “climate change” is preferred to “global warming” because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013), the understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (95 percent or greater chance) that the global average net effect of human activities has been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century (IPCC, 2013).

Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by- products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Observations of CO2 concentrations, globally-averaged temperature, and sea level rise are generally well within the range of the extent of the earlier IPCC projections. The recently observed increases in CH4 and N2O concentrations are smaller than those assumed in the scenarios in the previous assessments. Each IPCC assessment has used new projections of future climate change that have become more detailed as the models have become more advanced.

Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA], 2006). Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 25, meaning its global warming effect is 25 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC, 2007).

The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, Earth’s surface would be about 34° C cooler (CalEPA, 2006). However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. The following discusses the primary GHGs of concern.

Carbon Dioxide. The global carbon cycle is made up of large carbon flows and reservoirs. Billions of tons of carbon in the form of CO2 are absorbed by oceans and living biomass (i.e., sinks) and are emitted to the atmosphere annually through natural processes (i.e., sources). When in equilibrium, carbon fluxes among these various reservoirs are roughly balanced (United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2014). CO2 was the first GHG demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration, with the first conclusive measurements being made in the th second half of the 20 century. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen approximately 40 percent since the industrial revolution. The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 391 ppm in 2011 (IPCC, 2007; Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2010). The average annual CO2 concentration growth rate was larger between 1995 and 2005 (average: 1.9 ppm per year) than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year), although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates (NOAA, 2010). Currently, CO2 represents an estimated 74 percent of total GHG emissions (IPCC, 2007). The largest source of CO2 emissions, and of overall GHG emissions, is fossil fuel combustion.

Methane. CH4 is an effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is limited to 10 to 12 years. It has a GWP approximately 25 times that of CO2. Over the last 250 years, the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere has increased by 148 percent (IPCC, 2007), although emissions have declined from 1990 levels. Anthropogenic sources of CH4 include enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, wastewater treatment, stationary and mobile combustion, and certain industrial processes (U.S. EPA, 2014).

Nitrous Oxide. Concentrations of N2O began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution and continue to increase at a relatively uniform growth rate (NOAA, 2010). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizers that contain nitrogen, fossil fuel combustion, and other chemical processes. Use of these fertilizers has increased over the last century. Agricultural soil management and mobile source fossil fuel combustion are the major sources of N2O emissions. The GWP of nitrous oxide is approximately 298 times that of CO2 (IPCC, 2007).

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Fluorinated Gases (HFCS, PFCS and SF6). Fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are powerful GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, which have been regulated since the mid-1980s because of their ozone-destroying potential and are phased out under the Montreal Protocol (1987) and Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Electrical transmission and distribution systems account for most SF6 emissions, while PFC emissions result from semiconductor manufacturing and as a by-product of primary aluminum production. Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities than CO2, CH4, and N2O, but these compounds have much higher GWPs. SF6 is the most potent GHG the IPCC has evaluated.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHGs were approximately 46,000 million metric tons (MMT, or gigatonne) CO2e in 2010 (IPCC, 2014). CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 65 percent of total emissions in 2010. Of anthropogenic GHGs, CO2 was the most abundant accounting for 76 percent of total 2010 emissions. CH4 emissions accounted for 16 percent of the 2010 total, while nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases account for 6 and 2 percent respectively (IPCC, 2014).

Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,673.0 MMT CO2e in 2013 (U.S. EPA, 2015). Total U.S. emissions have increased by 5.9 percent since 1990; emissions increased by 2.0 percent from 2012to 2013 (U.S. EPA, 2015). The decrease from 2012 to 2013 was due to a reduction in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed to generate electricity due to an increase in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed to generate electricity due to an increase in coal consumption, with decreased natural gas consumption. Additionally, relatively cool winter conditions led to an increase in fuels for the residential and commercial sectors for heating. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent. In 2013, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 28.8 percent and 27.1 percent of CO2 emissions (with electricity-related emissions distributed), respectively. Meanwhile, the residential and commercial end-use sectors each accounted for 16.9 percent of CO2 emissions (U.S. EPA, 2015).

Based upon the California Air Resources Board (CARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2013 (CARB, 2015a), California produced 459 MMT CO2e in 2013. The largest source of GHGs in California is transportation, contributing 36 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, contributing 20 percent of the state’s GHG emissions (CARB, 2015a). Electric power accounted for approximately 20 percent of the total emissions. California emissions are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, per capita emissions in California are lower than in many other states. A factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions, as compared to other states, is its relatively mild climate. CARB has projected that statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020 will be 509 MMT CO2e (CARB,2015b). These projections represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.

Potential Effects of Climate Change. Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Long-term trends have found that each of the past three

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the decade from 2000 through 2010 has been the warmest. The global combined land and ocean temperature data show an increase of about 0.89°C (0.69°C–1.08°C) over the period 1901–2012 and about 0.72°C (0.49°C–0.89°C) over the period 1951–2012 when described by a linear trend. Several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in agreement that LSAT as well as sea surface temperatures have increased. In addition to these findings, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic over the past two decades (IPCC, 2013).

According to the CalEPA’s 2010 Climate Action Team Biennial Report, potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CalEPA, 2010). Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.

Air Quality. Higher temperatures, which are conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could increase, which, in turn, would further worsen air quality. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thereby ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (California Energy Commission [CEC], 2009).

Water Supply. Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future water supplies in California. However, the average early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada decreased by about 10 percent during the last century, a loss of 1.5 million acre-feet of snowpack storage. During the same period, sea level rose eight inches along California’s coast. California’s temperature has risen 1°F, mostly at night and during the winter, with higher elevations experiencing the highest increase. Many Southern California cities have experienced their lowest recorded annual precipitation twice within the past decade. In a span of only two years, Los Angeles experienced both its driest and wettest years on record (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2008; CCCC, 2009).

This uncertainty complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply by accumulating snow during the state’s wet winters and releasing it slowly during the state’s dry springs and summers. Based upon historical data and modeling DWR projects that the Sierra snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction from its historic average by 2050. Climate change is also anticipated to bring warmer storms that result in less snowfall at lower elevations, reducing the total snowpack (DWR, 2008).

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise. As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall, and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. According to The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, prepared by the California Climate Change Center (CCCC) (CCCC, 2009), climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels over the 2001-2010 decade, as observed by satellites, ocean buoys and land gauges, was approximately 3.2 mm per year, which is double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year (World Meteorological Organization [WMO], 2013). As a result, sea levels averaged over the last decade were about 8 inches higher than those of 1880 (WMO, 2013). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise is expected to accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report (2013) predicts a mean sea–level rise of 11-38 inches by 2100. This prediction is more than 50 percent higher than earlier projections of 7-23 inches, when comparing the same emissions scenarios and time periods. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California’s water supply due to salt water intrusion. In addition, increased CO2 emissions can cause oceans to acidify due to the carbonic acid it forms. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.

Agriculture. California has a $30 billion annual agricultural industry that produces half of the country’s fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand could increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater air pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (CCCC, 2006).

Ecosystems and Wildlife. Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists project that the average global surface temperature could rise by 1.0-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next 50 years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with substantial regional variation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3) species’ composition within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan, 2006).

b. Regulatory Setting.

International Regulations. The United States is, and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it was produced in 1992. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the objective of, “stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” This is generally understood to be achieved by stabilizing global GHG concentrations between 350 and 400 ppm, in order to limit the global average temperature increases between 2 and 2.4°C above pre-industrial levels (IPCC, 2007). The

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

UNFCCC itself does not set limits on GHG emissions for individual countries or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the treaty provides for updates, called “protocols,” that would identify mandatory emissions limits.

Five years later, the UNFCCC brought nations together again to draft the Kyoto Protocol (1997). The Kyoto Protocol established commitments for industrialized nations to reduce their collective emissions of six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, and PFCs) to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, but Congress has not ratified it and the United States has not bound itself to the Protocol’s commitments (UNFCCC, 2007). The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ended in 2012. Governments, including 38 industrialized countries, agreed to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol beginning January 1, 2013 and ending either on December 31, 2017 or December 31, 2020, to be decided by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its seventeenth session (UNFCCC, 2011).

In Durban (17th session of the Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa, 2011), governments decided to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change. Work began on that task immediately under a new group called the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Progress was also made regarding the creation of a Green Climate Fund (GCF) for which a management framework was adopted (UNFCCC, 2011; United Nations, 2011).

In December 2015, the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) adopted the Paris Agreement. The deal requires all countries that ratify it to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of peaking greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible” (Worland, 2015). The agreement includes commitments to (1) achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century; (2) to keep global temperature increase “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (C) or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 C; (3) to review progress every five years; and (4) to spend $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020 (UNFCCC, 2015). The agreement includes both legally binding measures, like reporting requirements, as well as voluntary or non-binding measures while, such as the setting of emissions targets for any individual country (Worland, 2015).

Federal Regulations. The United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) held that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act.

The U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires annual reporting of emissions. The first annual reports for these sources were due in March 2011.

On May 13, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule that took effect on January 2, 2011, setting a threshold of 75,000 tons CO2e per year for GHG emissions. New and existing industrial facilities that meet or exceed that threshold will require a permit after that date. On November 10, 2010, the U.S. EPA published the “PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases.” The U.S. EPA’s guidance document is directed at state agencies responsible for air pollution permits under the Federal Clean Air Act to help them understand how to implement GHG reduction

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

requirements while mitigating costs for industry. It is expected that most states will use the U.S. EPA’s new guidelines when processing new air pollution permits for power plants, oil refineries, cement manufacturing, and other large pollution point sources.

On January 2, 2011, the U.S. EPA implemented the first phase of the Tailoring Rule for GHG emissions Title V Permitting. Under the first phase of the Tailoring Rule, all new sources of emissions are subject to GHG Title V permitting if they are otherwise subject to Title V for another air pollutant and they emit at least 75,000 tons CO2e per year. Under Phase 1, no sources were required to obtain a Title V permit solely due to GHG emissions. Phase 2 of the Tailoring Rule went into effect July 1, 2011. At that time new sources were subject to GHG Title V permitting if the source emits 100,000 tons CO2e per year, or they are otherwise subject to Title V permitting for another pollutant and emit at least 75,000 tons CO2e per year.

On July 3, 2012, the U.S. EPA issued the final rule that retains the GHG permitting thresholds that were established in Phases 1 and 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule. These emission thresholds determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

California Regulations. California Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. California has a numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires ARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would reach 22 percent reduction from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (ARB, 2011).

In 2005, former Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. EO S-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels (CalEPA, 2006). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT Report”) (CalEPA, 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-7 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. In April 2015 Governor Brown issued EO B-30-15, calling for a new target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires ARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions.

After completing a comprehensive review and update process, ARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. The Scoping Plan was approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted over the last five years. Implementation activities are ongoing and ARB is currently the process of updating the Scoping Plan.

In May 2014, ARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defines ARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and sets the groundwork to reach post-2020 goals set forth in EO S-3-05. The update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy and transportation, and land use (ARB, 2014).

Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.

ARB Resolution 07-54 establishes 25,000 metric ton (MT) of GHG emissions as the threshold for identifying the largest stationary emission sources in California for purposes of requiring the annual reporting of emissions. This threshold is just over 0.005 percent of California’s total inventory of GHG emissions for 2004.

Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing ARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, ARB adopted final regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission were assigned targets of a

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-8 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

seven percent per capita reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction per capita reduction by 2035.

In April 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 2X requiring California to generate 33 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020.

On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued an executive order to establish a statewide mid-term GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. According to CARB, reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030 ensures that California will continue its efforts to reduce carbon pollution and help to achieve federal health-based air quality standards. Setting clear targets beyond 2020 also provides market certainty to foster investment and growth in a wide array of industries throughout the State, including clean technology and clean energy. CARB is currently working to update the Scoping Plan to provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The updated Scoping Plan is expected to be completed and adopted by CARB in 2016 (CARB 2015).

For more information on the Senate and Assembly Bills, Executive Orders, and reports discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites: www.climatechange.ca.gov and www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.

California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. As noted previously, the adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. To date, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) have adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs.

In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significant for GHG emissions (California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010). The plan-level thresholds for GHG emissions was in compliance with a “qualified GHG reduction strategy” or 6.6 MT CO2e/service population/year for General Plans and 4.6 MT CO2e/service population/year for Specific Plans. According to the Guidelines, a qualified GHG reduction strategy is one that includes the following elements:

a) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area. b) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable. c) Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area. d) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level. e) Monitor the plan’s progress f) Adopt the GHG Reduction Strategy in a public process following environmental review.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-9 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 Updated CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD was ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. In May 2012, the BAAQMD updated the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines to remove all references to the June 2010 adopted thresholds. In August 2013, the First District Court of Appeal overturned the trial court and held that the thresholds of significance adopted by the BAAQMD were not subject to CEQA review. The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of this case. The case is currently being briefed and the matter is still pending. Thus, BAAQMD will not issue a further recommendation until this litigation is complete.

Local Regulations. In 2005, the BAAQMD initiated a Climate Protection Program. On June 1, 2005 the Air District Board of Directors adopted a resolution establishing a Climate Protection Program and acknowledging the link between climate protection and programs to reduce air pollution in the Bay Area. On April 2, 2014, the Board of Directors of the BAAQMD voted to approve the 10-Point Climate Action Work Program which includes policy approaches and a technical program focused on reducing GHG emissions.

In June of 2013, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted the Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP). As part of development of the EECAP, the County is also identifying subsequent General Plan amendments to integrate new strategies into the County’s planning framework. According to the criteria described in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines and listed above, the EECAP qualifies as a GHG reduction strategy. With implementation of the measures contained in the EECAP, the County would achieve a 17 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2020 and would reduce the GHG emission to service population ratio to approximately 5.3 MT CO2e. The EECAP includes GHG reduction goals, measures, and actions in the areas of transportation, land use, building energy, water, waste, and green infrastructure. Together, these enable the County to achieve its climate protection goals.

4.3.2 Impact Analysis

a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the proposed project would be significant if the project would:

1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The issue of climate change for an individual project typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-10 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

As discussed in Section 4.2.1(e), Regulatory Setting, San Mateo County adopted an EECAP, and as part of development of the EECAP, the County is also identifying subsequent General Plan amendments to integrate new strategies into the County’s planning framework. Because the EECAP underwent environmental review under CEQA, is intended to reduce the County’s impact on climate change, and is consistent with BAAQMD qualification standards described in their June 2010 CEQA Guidelines, projects that are consistent with the EECAP would not have a significant climate change impact. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change would be cumulatively considerable if the project would conflict with the EECAP.

The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).

Study Methodology. Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these make up 98.9 percent of all GHG emissions by volume (IPCC, 2007) and are the GHG emissions that the project would emit in the largest quantities. Emissions of all GHGs are converted into their equivalent weight in CO2 (CO2e).

Construction Emissions. The BAAQMD has not established a threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Nevertheless, air districts such as the SLOACPD (2012) have recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over a 25-year period for commercial projects and a 50-year period for residential projects in conjunction with the proposed project’s operational emissions. In order to estimate the annual emissions that would result from construction activity associated with the proposed project, GHGs from construction projects are quantified and amortized over a 25-year period. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions and then compared to the applicable operational threshold. Construction activities are assumed to begin in July of 2016 and to occur over approximately 1 ½ months per school. Construction at the schools may overlap. However, it was assumed that no more than two campuses would undergo specific construction components simultaneously and that the contractor would rotate a single equipment fleet through each of the five campuses, rather than bringing in five identical fleets. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software model, based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used on-site at one time. Complete CalEEMod results and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix C.

On-Site Operational Emissions. Operational emissions from electricity used by the proposed project were calculated manually, by multiplying the estimated total kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity used by each stadium times the maximum hours the lights would be on annually, multiplied by the Pacific Gas and Electric Emission (PG&E) 2009-2013 average emission factor for CO2e. Emissions from waste, water, and wastewater would not be generated by the stadium lighting project, and as such, were not calculated.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-11 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion. Mobile emissions were calculated using the Emission Factors (EMFAC) model developed by the ARB and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) calculated per school based on trip generation rates from the Transportation Impact Analysis Administrative Draft Report, prepared by DKS (see Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic and Appendix C). An 80/20 split was used to calculate the attendance for home/away vehicles. For home games and local community events, the approximate distance to the average residential dwelling unit in the campus boundary area was used for calculations, and for away games, a conservative average of 10 miles was used to estimate the approximate distance to the average competing schools.

b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

Impact GHG-1 The project would generate GHG emissions during construction and long-term operation. Project generated emissions would not hinder or delay achievement of state GHG reduction targets established by AB 32 and the project would be consistent with the County’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project’s impact to climate change would be less than significant.

As discussed above in Section 4.3.2(a), GHG emissions for the proposed project were estimated using EMFAC, CalEEMod, and manually (see Appendix C for detailed emissions calculations worksheets).

Construction Emissions. Construction of the stadium lighting project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily due to the operation of construction equipment and truck trips. As shown in Table 4.3-1, construction of the lighting project at all five stadiums would generate an estimated 49.5 MT of CO2e. Amortized over a 25-year period, construction of the entire stadium lighting project would generate an estimated 2.0 MT of CO2e per year.

Table 4.3-1 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Emission Source Annual Emissions

Construction of total project 49.5 MT CO2e

Amortized over 25 years 2.0 MT CO2e/year

See Appendix C for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions.

Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions. For the purpose of this analysis, long-term emissions relate to electricity use and transportation. Both of these sources are discussed below.

Energy Use. Operation of the stadium lighting would consume electricity at each of the five facilities. The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels emits CO2, and to a smaller extent, N2O and CH4. Annual electricity emissions were calculated manually, as mentioned above, by multiplying the total kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity used by each stadium times the maximum hours the lights would be on annually, multiplied by the Pacific Gas

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-12 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Electric (PG&E) 2009-2013 average emission factor for CO2e. Electricity consumption associated with the proposed project would generate approximately 12 MT of CO2e per year, as shown in Table 4.3-2.

Transportation Emissions. The combined project would generate approximately 128,015 annual VMT. This estimate represents a conservative figure because many of the events would occur regardless of the stadium lighting at an alternative location or time, and the vehicle miles traveled would simply shift location or time. Nevertheless, this figure was used to calculate mobile emissions, and represents a worst-case-scenario. The project would generate a total of approximately 61 MT CO2e associated with mobile emissions.

Combined Construction, Stationary, and Mobile Source Emissions. Table 4.3-2 combines the construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project.

Table 4.3-2 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases (2018)

Annual Emissions Emission Source (Metric Tons CO2e) Project Construction 2 Project Operational 12 Project Mobile 61 Total Emissions from Project 75

Sources: See Appendix C for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions.

As shown in Table 4.3-2, the combined annual emissions for the total project would be approximately 75 MT of CO2e per year.

As discussed under “Methodology and Significance Thresholds,” San Mateo County adopted the EECAP in 2013. The EECAP serves as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy consistent with State CEQA Guidelines and BAAQMD. It outlines a programmatic approach for evaluating whether a project would have a significant climate change impact by determining whether a project is consistent with the EECAP. A project that relies on the EECAP for its cumulative GHG emissions analysis should be consistent with ABAG population projections, support or include applicable GHG reduction actions, strategies, and measures, and should not interfere with implementation of EECAP actions, strategies, or measures.

The project involves installation of stadium lighting at five high schools in San Mateo County and would not result in a population increase, and as such would be consistent with ABAG population projections. As demonstrated in Table 4.3-3, the project is consistent with strategies, measures, and actions from the County’s EECAP. Only strategies and measures from the EECAP that apply to the proposed project were included in the table. As shown, the project would support and implement some strategies and measures contained in the EECAP. This impact would be less than significant.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-13 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 4.3-3 Project Consistency San Mateo County’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) Goals and Strategy Project Consistency Global Warming Reduction Measures Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Consistent – The project would include installation of • Measure 2.3: Institutional Energy Efficiency: high-powered, energy-efficient light emitting diode Facilitate energy efficiency in large (LED) lights to replace the existing temporary, diesel- institutional energy users, including golf powered lights. courses, airports, and schools. Zero Waste Consistent – The project would include a minimum of • Measure 13.1: Use of Recycled Materials: 15 percent of recycled materials by weight into Require new development to incorporate a construction to encourage the market for recycled minimum of 15% of recycled materials into goods. construction to encourage the market for recycled goods. Off-Road Equipment Consistent – Equipment used on-site would comply • Measure 15.1: Construction Idling: Adopt with all local ordinances and policies that aim to reduce ordinances and policies that aim to reduce emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment by emissions from heavy-duty construction limiting idling and utilizing cleaner fuels, equipment, equipment by limiting idling and utilizing and vehicles to exceed BAAQMD requirements. cleaner fuels, equipment, and vehicles to exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) requirements.

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required.

Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

c. Cumulative Impacts. GHG and climate change are by definition cumulative impacts, as they affect the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As indicated above in Impact GHG-1 emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, and the project’s impacts are therefore also cumulatively less than significant.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.3-14 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

4.4 NOISE

4.4.1 Setting

a. Overview of Sound Measurement. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz).

The sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dB, and a sound that is 10 dB less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dB greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dB change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dB changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while those along arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations. Table 4.4-1 illustrates representative noise levels for the environment.

Table 4.4-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels

Noise Level Common Outdoor Activities (dBA) Common Indoor Activities —110— Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 1,000 feet —100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet —90— Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room

Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —30— Library

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Noise Level Common Outdoor Activities (dBA) Common Indoor Activities Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) —20— Broadcast/Recording Studio —10—

Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, 1998: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/Technical%20Noise%20Supplement.pdf

Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from point sources such as industrial machinery. Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dB per doubling of distance.

In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period.

The actual time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the daytime. Two commonly used noise metrics – the Day-Night average level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - recognize this fact by weighting hourly Leqs over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is a 24- hour average noise level that adds 10 dB to actual nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noise levels to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during that time period. The CNEL is identical to the Ldn, except it also adds a 5 dB penalty for noise occurring during the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM).

b. Existing Noise Conditions and Sources for Project Sites. The most common sources of noise in the Cities of San Mateo, San Bruno, and Millbrae’s vicinities are transportation- related, such as automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and airplanes. Motor vehicle noise is of concern because it is characterized by a high number of individual events, which often create a sustained noise level, and because of its proximity to areas sensitive to noise exposure. Ambient noise levels would be expected to be highest during the daytime and rush hour unless congestion slows speeds substantially. Each of the project sites is located primarily within single-family residential neighborhoods with the primary source of noise being traffic on adjacent streets. Other sources of noise from the proposed project sites include existing high school activities, which may include use of the existing public address system, outdoor sports or recreation, and elevated noise levels before, after, and in-between class times. In addition, the Cities of San Mateo, San Bruno, and Millbrae are exposed to frequent air traffic noise due to their proximity to San Francisco International Airport.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

In order to quantify existing noise levels at adjacent noise sensitive land uses, noise measurements were taken in residential areas surrounding all five high school stadiums. Continuous, long-term (24-hour) noise measurements were generally made near sensitive receptors closest to the stadiums where sound level meter mounting locations, such as a utility pole, tree, or fence, were available. Short-term noise measurements supplemented the long- term measurements and provided ambient noise levels at a wider range of locations. The measurement at three of the high schools (San Mateo, Hillsdale and Aragon) also included the sounds of a nighttime football game with temporary lighting and PA systems. The PA systems included a mix of temporary and semi-permanent loudspeakers and amplification systems. The measurements at Capuchino and Mills High Schools did not include football games because no football games were played at those schools during the timeframe of the stadium noise study.

Site-specific noise sources are identified below.

Aragon High School Site. Noise affecting the vicinity of Aragon High School is primarily from vehicles traveling along Alameda De Las Pulgas adjacent to the eastern end of the site. Additional traffic along roadways that surround the project site, including Park Boulevard, Magnolia Avenue, Barcelona Drive, and Millwood Drive provide additional vehicular noise. Two continuous, long-term (24-hour) noise measurements and four short-term (5-15 minute) noise measurements were made on November 6th and November 7th, 2015. There was both a Junior Varsity and Varsity football game on the evening of November 7th. Measured ambient noise levels are shown in Table 4.4-2 and Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2, below. Please see Field Lighting Project Assessment of Crowd and PA Noise Impact (Appendix D) for figures depicting the locations of the noise measurements.

Table 4.4-2 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Aragon High School A-weighted Sound Level, dBA

Location Time Leq Source / Lmax ST-1-A 604 Hobart Avenue, 6 November 2015 63 Crowd: 73 5’ above ground 20:01 – 20:16 P.M. PA – Speech: 66 PA – Music: 65-72 Crowd + PA: 88-91 Traffic: 59-69 ST-2-A 901 Alameda de las 6 November 2015 62 Crowd: 59 Pulgas, 5’ above ground 20:21 – 20:36 P.M. PA – Speech: 56-60 Crowd + PA: 61 Traffic: 60-69 Whistle: 53,55 ST-3-A 1120 Woodland Drive, 6 November 2015 50 Crowd: 50-52 5’ above ground 20:47 – 20:52 P.M. PA – Speech: 48-51 Crowd + PA: 57 Traffic: 62 A-weighted Sound Level, dBA

Location Time Leq Source / Lmax ST-4-A 1040 Woodland Drive, 6 November 2015 49 Crowd: 46 5’ above ground 20:58 – 21:03 P.M. PA – Speech: 43-46 Crowd + PA: 48 Traffic: 51-56 Plane: 47,57

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Figure 4.4-1: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-A DNL = 63 dBA, CNEL = 64 dBA

Figure 4.4-2: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results Location LT-2-A DNL = 67 dBA, CNEL = 68 dBA

Capuchino High School Site. Noise affecting the vicinity of Capuchino High School is primarily from vehicles traveling along State Route 82, which is located approximately 600 feet to the east of the project site. Additional traffic along Park Boulevard, Magnolia Avenue, and Millwood Drive provide additional vehicular noise. Two noise measurements were made on December 18th, 2015: one continuous, long-term (24-hour) noise measurement and one short- term (15 minute) noise measurement. No athletic games were played at the Capuchino stadium

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

during these measurements. Measured ambient noise levels are shown in Table 4.4-3 and Figure 4.4-3, below. Please see Field Lighting Project Assessment of Crowd and PA Noise Impact (Appendix D) for figures depicting the locations of the noise measurements.

Table 4.4-3 School Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Capuchino High School A-weighted Sound Level, dBA

Location Time Leq L8 L33 L50 Lmax DNL* ST-1-C Barcelona Drive, 18 December 2015 61 65 53 50 82 71 5’ above ground 11:17 – 11:32 A.M.

*Ldn based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at the long-term location.

Figure 4.4-3: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-C DNL = 68 dBA, CNEL= 68 dBA

Hillsdale High School Site. Noise affecting the vicinity of Hillsdale High School is primarily from traffic along 31st Avenue, West Hillsdale Boulevard, and Alameda De Las Pulgas. Three short-term noise measurements were taken on November 12th, 2015. These measurements captured the ambient noise levels and the noise associated with an athletic practice at the Hillsdale stadium. Two continuous, long-term (24-hour) noise measurements and four short-term (15 minute) noise measurements were made on November 13th, 2015. The November 13th measurements captured the ambient noise levels as well as the noise from a football game. Measured ambient noise levels are shown in Table 4.4-4 and Figures 4.4-4 and 4.4-5, below. Please see Field Lighting Project Assessment of Crowd and PA Noise Impact (Appendix D) for figures depicting the locations of the noise measurements.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-4 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Hillsdale High School A-weighted Sound Level, dBA

Location Time Leq Source / Lmax ST-1-H 512 W Hillsdale Blvd., 12 November 2015 53 Traffic: 53-57 5’ above ground 16:33 – 16:48 P.M. 13 November 2015 58 Crowd: 55-66 19:01 – 19:16 P.M. PA – Speech: 56-62 PA – Music: 56 Crowd + PA: 59-66 Traffic: 60 Band: 54-58 ST-2-H 3133 Alameda de las 12 November 2015 66 Traffic: 60-75 Pulgas, 5’ above ground 16:58 – 17:13 P.M. Practice: 55 13 November 2015 71 Crowd: 71-77 19:20 – 19:35 P.M. PA – Speech: 69-73 Crowd + PA: 74-85 Traffic: 68 Train Horn: 72 Band: 68-75 ST-3-H 526 31st Avenue, 12 November 2015 64 Traffic: 73 5’ above ground 17:16 – 17:31 P.M. Jet: 57 Practice: 50-51 13 November 2015 69 Crowd: 71-74 19:41 – 19:56 P.M. PA – Speech: 64-72 Crowd + PA: 76-80 Train: 65 Traffic: 68-76 Band: 68-69 ST-4-H 405 Heather Lane, 13 November 2015 56 Crowd: 63-67 5’ above ground 19:41 – 19:56 P.M. PA – Speech: 56-65 Plane:55 Traffic:57 Band:54

Figure 4.4-4: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results Location, LT-1-H DNL = 66 dBA, CNEL = 68 dBA

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Figure 4.4-5: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-2-H DNL = 67 dBA, CNEL = 70 dBA

Mills High School Site. Noise affecting the vicinity of Mills High School is primarily from vehicles traveling along State Route 82, which is located approximately 600 feet to the east of the project site. Additional traffic along roadways that surround the project site, including Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive provide additional vehicular noise. One long-term (24- hour) noise measurement and one short-term (15-minute) noise measurement were made on December 18th, 2015. No football game occurred on this measurement date. Measured ambient noise levels are shown in Table 4.4-5 and Figure 4.4-6, below. Please see Field Lighting Project Assessment of Crowd and PA Noise Impact (Appendix D) for figures depicting the locations of the noise measurements.

Table 4.4-5 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results - Mills High School A-weighted Sound Level, dBA

Location Time Leq L8 L33 L50 Lmax DNL* Sequoia Avenue, 18 December 2015 ST-1-M 58 63 51 48 77 61 5’ above ground 10:44 – 10:59 A.M.

*Ldn based on comparison with simultaneous measurement at the long-term location.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-7 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Figure 4.4-6: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-M DNL = 69 dBA, CNEL = 69 dBA

San Mateo High School Site. Noise affecting the vicinity of San Mateo High School is primarily from vehicles traveling along Highway 101, which is located approximately 800 feet to the east of the project site. Additional traffic along roadways that surround the project site, including North Delaware Street, East Poplar Avenue, and North Humboldt Street provides additional vehicular noise. Two continuous, three-hour noise measurements and three short- term (5-15 minute) noise measurements were made on the evening of October 30th, 2015 during a nighttime football game. An additional long-term (24-hour) noise measurement was made on a football game day on November 5th, 2015. Measured ambient noise levels are shown in Table 4.4-6 and Figure 4.4-7, below. Please see Field Lighting Project Assessment of Crowd and PA Noise Impact (Appendix D) for figures depicting the locations of the noise measurements.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-8 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-6 San Mateo High School Noise Measurement Results A-weighted Sound Level, dBA

Location Time Leq Source / Lmax ST-1-SM 629 N Delaware 30 October 2015 60 Crowd: 64,67 Street, 19:10 – 19:25 P.M. PA – Speech: 57 5’ above ground Crowd + PA: 66 Traffic: 58.59.60, 66, 66 Jet: 56 Band: 61,63 ST-2-SM Woodlake 30 October 2015 62 Crowd: 75 Apartments, 19:31 – 19:46 P.M. PA – Speech: 60, 63,64, 66 5’ above ground Train horn: 62 Band: 67 Whistle: 60, 60, 65, 66 ST-3-SM Southeast of field, 30 October 2015 67 Crowd: 66,71, 74 5’ above ground 19:54 – 20:09 P.M. Band: 68,70,71 Whistle: 63,64,66 LT-1-SM Woodlake 30 October 2015 63 NA Apartments, 18:02 – 21:18 P.M. 10’ above ground LT-2-SM SM Parking Lot, 30 October 2015 76 NA 10’ above ground 17:42 – 21:34 P.M.

Figure 4.4-7: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results, Location LT-1-SM DNL = 62 dBA, CNEL= 64 dBA

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-9 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

c. Sensitive Receptors Near Project Sites. Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, and libraries are most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure targets than manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. Descriptions of sensitive receptors in the vicinity to each alternative site are identified below.

Aragon High School Site. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single-family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 130 feet northeast of the edge of the stadium. The only adjacent non-residential land use is Baywood Elementary School, which is located to the northwest across Woodland Drive. Baywood Elementary School and single- family residences surrounding Aragon High School would be sensitive receptors subject to construction noise associated with the proposed project, operational noise from increased traffic noise on all roadways surrounding the project site, the new public address system, and crowd noise from athletic event spectators.

Capuchino High School Site. The school is surrounded almost entirely by single-family residences. A few multi-family residences border the school to the east. The nearest residence is located approximately 170 feet south of the edge of the stadium. Green Hills Country Club is located approximately 250 feet to the south of the school property boundary. San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northeast, across U.S. Highway 101. Single-family residences surrounding Capuchino High School and multi-family residences to the east of the project site would be sensitive receptors subject to construction noise associated with the proposed project, operational noise from increased traffic noise on all roadways surrounding the project site, the new public address system, and crowd noise from athletic event spectators.

Hillsdale High School Site. The school is surrounded entirely by single-family residences. The nearest residence is located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Abbott Middle School is located approximately 400 feet to the southeast, across West Hillsdale Boulevard. Abbott School and single-family residences surrounding Aragon High School would be sensitive receptors subject to construction noise associated with the proposed project, operational noise from increased traffic noise on all roadways surrounding the project site, the new public address system, and crowd noise from athletic event spectators.

Mills High School Site. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the southwest, multi-family residences to the northwest, northeast, and southeast, and commercial land uses to the east. The nearest residence is located approximately 190 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. Spring Valley Elementary School is located approximately 0.1 mile to the south. Spring Valley Elementary School and single-family and multi-family residences surrounding Mills High School would be sensitive receptors subject to construction noise associated with the proposed project, operational noise from increased traffic noise on all roadways surrounding the project site, the new public address system, and crowd noise from athletic event spectators.

San Mateo High School Site. The school is surrounded by single-family residences to the northeast, multi-family residences to the northwest and southwest, and institutional land uses to the southeast. The nearest residence is the Woodlake Apartments, which are located approximately 80 feet northwest of the edge of the stadium. College Park Elementary School is

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-10 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

located directly to the southeast, across East Poplar Avenue. College Park Elementary School and single-family and multi-family residences surrounding San Mateo High School would be sensitive receptors subject to construction noise associated with the proposed project, operational noise from increased traffic noise on all roadways surrounding the project site, the new public address system, and crowd noise from athletic event spectators.

d. Regulatory Setting.

State.

Government Code Section 53094. This article of California’s Government Code states that a school district is not required to comply with the zoning ordinances of a county or city unless the zoning ordinance makes provision for the location of public schools and unless the city or county has adopted a general plan. Furthermore, this article authorizes the governing board of a school district to render a local zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district, by a vote of two-thirds of its members. The governing board may not take this action when the proposed use of the property is for non-classroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, and automotive storage and repair buildings. Because the stadiums at the project sites are facilities at public schools, the governing board of SMUHSD may vote to exempt the proposed project from local zoning ordinances pertaining to noise.

The Office of Planning and Research has adopted guidelines based, in part, on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. A noise environment of 50 dBA CNEL to 60 dBA CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for single-family residential uses. An exterior noise level up to 65 dBA CNEL is “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses, without special noise insulation requirements. A noise level of 75 dBA CNEL or more is identified as "clearly unacceptable" for all residential uses. A “normally acceptable” designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems (e.g., air conditioning) normally suffices for the “conditionally acceptable” condition. A noise environment that exceeds 65 dBA CNEL is considered undesirable for institutional uses such as churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals.

Local. Although the SMUHSD governing board voted to exempt the proposed project from local zoning ordinances pursuant to Government Code Section 53094 with Resolution 15- 16 adopted on October 22, 2015, the following regulatory information for the cities in which the project sites are located (Millbrae, San Bruno, and San Mateo) is provided for informational purposes. Regulatory information for the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough, which are adjacent to two of the project sites, is also included.

City of Millbrae General Plan Noise Element. The Noise Element of the City of Millbrae General Plan has goals and policies to assure the compatibility of a new development with the noise environment of the City. The goals, policies and actions related to the type of noise that would be generated by the proposed project are below:

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-11 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

• GOAL NS1: Protect Millbrae’s neighborhoods by providing an acceptable noise level throughout the community, identifying and alleviating or minimizing existing noise problems where possible. POLICY NS1.2: Protect the noise environment in existing residential areas, requiring the evaluation of mitigation measures for projects under the following circumstances: a. The project would cause the Ldn to increase 3 dBA or more. b. Any increase would result in an Ldn greater than 60 dBA. c. The Ldn already exceed 60 dBA. d. The project has the potential to generate significant adverse community response.

POLICY NS1.3: Work with property owners to control noise at its source, maintaining existing noise levels and ensuring that noise levels do not exceed acceptable noise standards as in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.

POLICY NS1.4: Regulate construction activity to reduce noise between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am.

POLICY NS1.5: Strive to reduce traffic noise levels, especially as they impact residential areas, and continue enforcement of vehicle noise standards through noise readings and enforcement actions.

• Noise Implementing Program NSIP 7: Evaluate and improve control mechanisms to minimize the noise impacts of special events, including: a. Planning for overflow potential (parking, crowds) b. Establishing a citation mechanism c. Establishing a formal review of past performance d. Informing neighborhood residents about events

City of Millbrae Municipal Code. The City of Millbrae Municipal Code does not explicitly establish noise thresholds for construction noise levels. However, the City of Millbrae does have an ordinance that limits construction times. Allowable construction times are weekdays from 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM and weekends from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Other noises (parties, loud music, etc.), are regulated by the City Municipal Code if the noise is determined to be “unreasonable.” The City of Millbrae does not have any quantitative standards related to noise from public address or amplified sound systems.PM

City of San Bruno General Plan Noise Element. Chapter 5 of the Health and Safety Element of the City of San Bruno General Plan has policies to assure the compatibility of a new development with the noise environment of the City. The City uses the Ldn descriptor in various policies but it does not have a policy with quantitative standards related to acceptable increases in noise.

City of San Bruno Municipal Code. The following noise regulations are relevant to the type of noise that would be generated by the proposed project at Capuchino High School:

6.16.070 Construction of buildings and projects. No person shall, within any residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on any building, structure, or other project, or operate any pile

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-12 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist, or any other construction-type device which shall exceed, between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m., a noise level of eighty- five decibels as measured at one hundred feet, or exceed between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. a noise level of sixty decibels as measured at one hundred feet, unless such person shall have first obtained a permit therefor from the director of public works. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work. (Ord. 1354 § 1; prior code § 16-4.7)

6.16.080 Public areas.

A. No source of sound, including but not limited to amplifiers and other musical devices, shall exceed seventy decibels at a distance of fifty feet from the source of the sound between the hours of eleven a.m. and four p.m. unless a permit shall first have been obtained from the city council.

B. No source of sound, including but not limited to amplifiers and other musical devices, shall exceed sixty decibels at a distance of fifty feet from the source of the sound between the hours of four p.m. and eleven a.m. unless a permit shall first have been obtained from the city council. (Ord. 1354 § 1; prior code § 16-4.8)

6.16.160 Amplified Sound – Regulations. The commercial and noncommercial use of sound- amplifying equipment shall be subject to the following regulations:

A. The only sounds permitted shall be either music or human speech, or both.

B. The operation of sound-amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. each day except on Sundays and legal holidays. No operation of sound- amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. The operation of sound-amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes on Sundays and legal holidays shall occur only between the hours of ten a.m. and eight p.m.

C. Sound level emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall not exceed fifteen decibels above the ambient base noise level, as measured at a distance of one hundred feet from the sound source. [NOTE: Per section 6.16.030 of the code, the ambient noise level between seven a.m. and ten p.m. is 60 decibels]

D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C, sound-amplifying equipment shall not be operated within two hundred feet of churches, schools, hospitals or city or county buildings.

City of San Mateo General Plan Noise Element. The Noise Element of the City of San Mateo General Plan has goals and policies to assure the compatibility of a new development with the noise environment of the City. The goals, policies and actions related to the type of noise that would be generated by the proposed project are described below:

GOAL 2: Minimize unnecessary, annoying, or unhealthful noise.

POLICY N 2.2: Protect all “noise-sensitive” land uses listed in Tables N-1 and N-2 from adverse impacts caused by the noise generated on-site by new developments. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into development design to minimize noise impacts. Prohibit long-term exposure increases of 3 dB (Ldn) or greater at the common

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-13 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

property line, or new uses which generate noise levels of 60 dB (Ldn) or greater at the property line, excluding existing ambient noise levels. “Noise-sensitive” land uses, such as residential neighborhoods, hotels, hospitals, schools, and outdoor recreation areas must be protected from new development that causes discernable increases in noise levels as a result of on-site activities. Noise generators such as machinery or parking lots must be mitigated through physical measures or operational limits.

City of San Mateo Municipal Code. The following noise regulations are related to the type of noise that would be generated by the proposed project at San Mateo, Aragon, and Hillsdale High School:

7.30.040 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels. (a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the City or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed: (1) The noise level standard for that property as specified in Table 7.30.040 for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; (2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; (3) The noise level standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; (4) The noise level standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus 20 dB for any period of time. (b) If the measured ambient level for any area is higher than the standard set in Table 7.30.040, then the ambient shall be the base noise level standard for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of this section. In such cases, the noise levels for purposes of subsections (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section shall be increased in five dB increments above the ambient.

Noise Level Standards

Noise Zone Time Period Noise Level (dB) Noise Zone 1 10 p.m.—7 a.m. 50 (Single-family residences) 7 a.m.—10 p.m. 60

7.30.060 Special Provisions. (a) Sound Performances and Special Events. Sound performances and special events not exceeding 80 dB measured at a distance of 50 feet from the loudest source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefor has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity. (e) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or land development activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and five p.m., and on Sundays and

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-14 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

holidays between the hours of noon and four p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized or restricted by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB. 7.30.100(b): The operation of sound-amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of seven a.m. and eleven p.m. on Monday through Saturday. The operation of sound-amplifying equipment on Sundays and legal holidays shall occur only between the hours of ten a.m. and eight p.m.

City of Burlingame General Plan Noise Element. The Noise Element of the City of Burlingame General Plan has standards to assure the compatibility of a new development with the noise environment of the City. These standards are in terms of CNEL. However, the City does not have any quantitative standards related to acceptable increase in noise.

City of Burlingame Noise Ordinance:

10.40.020 Loudspeakers disturbing peace. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to use or operate or cause to be used or operated any mechanical device, machine, apparatus or instrument for intensification or amplification of the human voice or any sound or noise, in any public or private place in such a manner that the peace and good order of the neighborhood is disturbed, or that persons owning, using or occupying the property in the neighborhood are disturbed or annoyed. (1941 Code § 1341)

Town of Hillsborough General Plan Noise Element. The Noise Element of the Town of Hillsborough General Plan has goals and policies to assure the compatibility of a new development with the noise environment of the City. These polices are in terms of Ldn or CNEL. However, the Town does not have any policy with quantitative standards related to acceptable increase in noise.

Town of Hillsborough Noise Ordinance: Chapter 8.32 of the Town’s Noise Ordinance has noise regulations for sound performances and special events. According to the Noise Ordinance:

8.32.050 (c): Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dBA measured at a distance of fifty feet from the source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefor has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity.

4.4.2 Impact Analysis

a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Noise associated with implementation of the project would be generated by both activities at the project sites and traffic to and from each of the project sites. The methodology for assessing the significance of these noise sources is described below.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-15 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Crowd and PA Noise. In order to evaluate the impact of the project on the communities surrounding each of the five schools, the data acquired from both short-term and long-term sound level measurements taken at various times throughout the day, including during nighttime football games, was used to obtain a typical ambient noise level as well as typical noise levels from existing activities that occur on the athletic fields. In addition to describing ambient noise levels, the noise measurement data gathered during existing athletic field activities (such as football games and practices) was used to estimate future noise levels associated with evening and nighttime activities that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The methodology for estimating future noise levels for activities associated with the proposed project is described below. In addition, the results of computer modeling of the proposed sound systems were also considered for each school. Two programs, the Electroacoustic Simulation for Engineers (EASE) and SoundPlan, were used to model and predict the noise levels from the proposed future loudspeakers at measurement locations and at additional points of interest beyond the project sites. Please see Field Lighting Project Assessment of Crowd and PA Noise Impact (Appendix D) for figures depicting the modeled noise contours for the proposed public address systems.

Nighttime football games that were played under portable lights were measured at three of the five project sites: Aragon, Hillsdale, and San Mateo stadiums. No football games were measured at the Capuchino and Mills stadiums. The loudest of the measured football games occurred at Hillsdale High School, and the recorded noise levels from that game are therefore used as a conservative estimate of the noise levels associated with a nighttime football game at any of the five project sites. The dominant noise source during football games is the crowd cheering. Referee whistles, voices from coaches and players, and the PA system sound are also noticeable but are not the dominant contributor to average noise levels during the games.

Daytime games were not measured at any of the five project sites. However, most football games played under existing conditions are daytime games. In order to estimate the noise levels associated with existing daytime games, the measured nighttime football game noise levels were adjusted downward by approximately 2 dBA to account for the lower attendance for a daytime game. The District estimates that attendance at daytime games is approximately one third lower than attendance at nighttime games. A 2 dBA downward adjustment for the estimated daytime game noise levels is a reasonable estimate of the reduced noise levels that would result from the lower daytime attendance. This adjusted noise level for a daytime football game was used to model the existing daytime football games that occur without the use of portable lights at the five project sites.

The noise levels associated with existing soccer and lacrosse games were not measured. Noise measurements from a JV football game were used to model the noise from future evening soccer and lacrosse games since it is assumed that they would have lower attendance than varsity football. There would be minimal PA usage during these games.

The noise level from school athletic practices was obtained from the long-term measurements at the five project sites and from short-term measurements at Hillsdale High School. Practice noise is generally limited to the voices of coaches and players as well as the coaches’ whistles. No difference is expected between the noise level of practices occurring during the daytime and those occurring during the evening with the project. The PA system would not be used during practices. Community leagues (including adults) may use the fields in the evening for athletic games. Noise would be generated from the voices of players and referee whistles. Noise levels

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-16 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

for future evening community events are estimated based on measurements of athletic practices with an upward adjustment of 5 dBA to account for more intensive communication between players. A 5 dBA increase in noise levels is noticeable and is a conservative estimate of the noise increase associated with a community athletic event compared to a high school practice. Noise from these activities would not include PA use and the minimal spectator attendance is assumed to be captured by the 5 dBA upward adjustment to the measured noise levels associated with a high school practice.

In order to evaluate the annual average noise levels from the fields with and without the project, assumptions were made regarding the number and distribution of events with the project. As no specific usage data was available, this report uses available information from Burlingame High School, which has lighting and an amplified sound system. Table 4.4-7 summarizes the assumptions for field usage.

Table 4.4-7 Field Use Assumptions Number of Events Evening Field Usage Timing Per Year High School Football (F) until 9:30 PM 6

High School Non-Football (F) until 9:30 PM 7

High School Non-Football (M-Th) until 8:30 PM 29

High School Practice until 8:30 PM 82

Community Athletic Games until 8:30 PM 127

High School Special Events until 8:30 PM 4

Source: Burlingame High School Monthly Light Use, SMUHSD 2016.

Traffic Noise. Noise levels associated with existing and future traffic along area roadways were calculated using standard noise modeling equations adapted from the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5 (noise modeling data sheets can be viewed in Appendix E). The model calculations are based on peak hour traffic data from the Transportation Impact Analysis Administrative Draft Report prepared for the project by DKS (see Appendix F). Three roadways in the vicinity of Capuchino High School were modelled in TNM: Crystal Springs Road, Millwood Drive, and Park Boulevard. These roadways were determined to be representative of the greatest potential increase in traffic noise for all five project sites due to these roadways experiencing the greatest percentage increase in traffic volume during peak hour. These roadway segments include a mix of both busy streets with high traffic volume and streets along quiet residential neighborhoods.

The TNM model was calibrated by comparing modelled existing traffic noise on two of the three selected roadway segments with measured noise levels taken at the same locations. As shown below in Table 4.4-8, the difference between modelled and measured noise level is within the acceptable 3.0 dBA range to demonstrate the validity of the TNM model for prediction of traffic noise levels under future conditions. Cumulative conditions correspond to pending development within the City as indicated in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, Table 3- 1.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-17 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-8 Noise Levels Associated with Existing Traffic on Area Roadways (dBA Leq)

Measured Modelled Roadway Existing Existing Difference

Capuchino High School

Millwood Drive 57.5 57.3 0.2

Park Boulevard 60.5 57.6 2.9 See Noise Modeling Data sheets in Appendix E of this document.

For the purposes of this analysis, noise impacts of the proposed project would be significant if they would exceed the following thresholds of significance, which are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related to noise if it would result in:

1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A). The Initial Study analyzed potentially significant impacts that might occur from implementation of the proposed project. Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, noise impacts related to groundborne vibration and public airports were found to be less than significant. The Initial Study also found no impacts related to private airstrips. Therefore, impacts related to criteria 2, 5, and 6 above are addressed in Appendix A and are not discussed further in this section.

As detailed below, the CEQA thresholds listed above are further refined to provide reasonable quantitative thresholds for the evaluation of the significance of potential noise impacts.

Construction Noise Impact Thresholds. Although the proposed project is exempt from local zoning ordinances by governing board Resolution 15-16 as described above, CEQA requires the use of a threshold for evaluation of potential noise impacts. In order to evaluate temporary construction noise impacts under CEQA Appendix G threshold 4 above, the relevant local construction noise thresholds are used for impact evaluation in this analysis. The use of local thresholds for construction noise impacts in this analysis does not imply that the District would be subject to those regulations. Rather, those thresholds are used to determine the severity of potential impacts under CEQA. As discussed above in Regulatory Setting, the cities of

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-18 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

San Mateo, San Bruno, and Millbrae establish restrictions on construction hours, noise thresholds for ambient noise levels, and noise thresholds for noise produced by construction activity. Impacts relating to temporary increases in noise would be considered significant if:

• Construction-related activities at Aragon, Hillsdale, and San Mateo High School would create noise exceeding noise standards as defined in the Section 70.30.060(e) of City of San Mateo’s Municipal Code; • Construction–related activity at Capuchino High School would create noise exceeding noise standards as defined in Section 6.16.070 of the City of San Bruno’s Municipal Code, or; • Construction-related activity at Mills High School would create noise exceeding stationary noise standards as defined in the City of Millbrae’s General Plan Noise Element.

Operational Noise Impact Thresholds. CEQA does not provide quantitative noise level limits to use as thresholds of significance for a project. Instead, it points to use of local ordinances, adopted standards of agencies as well as the potential for a project to significantly increase existing noise levels above those that were present without the project. Within this framework, the following thresholds are applied for this project.

Threshold 1: A significant noise impact would occur if the combined noise from all field sources exceeds an hourly L50 of 60 dBA at the adjacent residential land uses.

For the purposes of assessing impacts from the combined noise of all sources associated with activities at the field (e.g. crowd, PA, players and coaches) an hourly L50 of 60 dBA is used as a threshold of significance. This threshold is based on a comparison of the municipal codes of the five communities affected by the project and represents a conservative impact significance threshold. The L50 is often referred to as the median noise level. As described above, this threshold is used for the purposes of determining the severity of impacts under CEQA and does not imply that the District would be subject to the noise restrictions contained in the local ordinances.

Threshold 2: A significant noise impact would occur if the noise from the new PA system would exceed 65 dBA at the nearest property line.

The Board of Trustees for the District, in recognition of the importance of minimizing noise impact to neighbors from PA use, has adopted a policy for amplified sound. The policy requires that the sound of the PA system be limited to 65 dBA at the nearest property line or compliance with the local ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. In all cases, the thresholds of the local ordinance related to PA use or amplified sound are less restrictive. For example, San Mateo uses 80 dBA at 50 feet as a limit and this is less restrictive than the 65 dBA property line limit from the district. Therefore the District policy is applied as a threshold of significance for noise impacts related to the use of the proposed new PA systems.

Threshold 3: A significant impact would occur if the daily CNEL increases by 3 dBA or more when a game is played at night (as compared to a day when a game is played during the daytime).

Though the District is not obligated to meet noise level restrictions defined by local plans and ordinances per State policies, the General Plans of San Mateo and Millbrae provide specific guidance on how to evaluate increases in community noise for their respective communities. The San Mateo and Millbrae policies are similar and require consideration of mitigation measures for projects that increase the Ldn by 3 dBA or more. In order to account for increased

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-19 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

noise levels during future evening activities at the five project site stadiums, CNEL is used in place of Ldn for this analysis because CNEL includes a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring during the evening hours (7 PM – 10 PM).

In order to evaluate the potential impact that would occur as a result of a change from day games to night games, this report considers the increase in the CNEL on a day when a Varsity football game is played at night as compared to the CNEL on a day when a Varsity football game is played during the day. This analysis uses the Varsity football game at Hillsdale High School as the basis for the assessment of increased noise at all five schools since it had the loudest measured noise level. This is a conservative approach, because other games and activities are quieter and would generate smaller increases. Use of CNEL increase on a single varsity football game day is considered conservative because the future Varsity football games would only occur up to eight times per year and some of the existing football games already occur in the evening under portable lights.

Threshold 4: A significant impact would occur if the annual average CNEL increases by 3 dBA or more as a result of the project.

While the CNEL increase on a Varsity football game day is helpful to understand potential impacts on a daily basis, it does not provide a measure of the long-term operational impact associated with implementation of the proposed project because evening events would be scheduled on the project site fields throughout the year.

In order to evaluate the potential impact of noise from all field-related activities during the course of a year, this analysis considers the increase in the annual average CNEL that would result from allowing football, soccer, lacrosse, practices, and other non-school activities on the field at night. For the purposes of determining the severity of a potential impact, a CNEL increase of more than 3 dBA is considered significant based on the thresholds identified above.

Traffic Noise Impact Thresholds. For the purposes of this analysis, traffic-related noise impacts are considered significant if project-generated traffic would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) May 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment recommendations were used to determine whether or not increases in roadway noise would be considered significant. The allowable noise exposure increase changes with increasing noise exposure, such that lower ambient noise levels have a higher allowable noise exposure increase. These noise increase thresholds would apply to a frequent, long-term change in noise levels, such as that associated with increased daily commuter traffic.

Table 4.4-9 shows the significance thresholds for increases in traffic-related noise levels caused either by the project alone or by cumulative development. Although the District would not be subject to noise restrictions based on the thresholds defined below, these thresholds are used to determine the severity of potential traffic-related noise impacts under CEQA.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-20 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-9 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure Ldn or Leq in dBA Existing Noise Allowable Noise Exposure Exposure Increase 45-50 7 50-55 5 55-60 3 60-65 2 65-70 1 75+ 0

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), May 2006

If sensitive receptors would be exposed to permanent, consistent traffic noise increases exceeding the above criteria, impacts would be significant.

b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

Impact N-1 Noise generated by construction of the proposed project at all five project sites would not exceed thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Nearby noise-sensitive land uses generally include single-family residences and other schools near the project sites. These sensitive receptors would be exposed to temporary construction noise during development of the proposed project. Noise impacts are a function of the type of activity being undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Temporary noise increases would result from construction activities such as excavation, trenching, and pole installation.

Very little grading would be required for the proposed project. Ground disturbance would be limited to excavation for the lighting and speaker system pole foundations and trenching or boring for the electrical conduit installation. Construction equipment for pole foundation excavation, trenching, and boring would likely include a backhoe, an auger, and a drill rig. Table 4.4-10 below shows the typical noise levels that these pieces of equipment would generate at the nearest sensitive receptors for the five project sites.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-21 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-10 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Noise level at Noise Level at Noise Level at Noise Level at Noise Level at Receptor 80 Receptor 130 Receptor 170 Receptor 80 Receptor 190 feet Northwest feet Northeast feet South of feet Northwest feet Northwest of San Mateo Equipment of Aragon HS Capuchino HS of Hillsdale HS of Mills HS HS

Augur Drill Rig 75.7 73.4 79.9 72.4 79.9

Backhoe 69.7 67.4 73.9 66.4 73.9

Excavator 72.7 70.4 76.9 69.4 76.9

Flatbed Truck 65.7 63.4 69.9 62.4 69.9

Distances extrapolated from 50 feet and noise levels calculated at varying distances for noise attenuation Source: FTA, 2006.

Aragon High School Site. Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise levels that could affect sensitive receptors near the project site, particularly the single-family residences surrounding the site. As indicated in Table 4.4-10, temporary construction activities could generate noise levels of up to 75.7 dBA at the closest residential use, which is located 130 feet to the northeast. The City of San Mateo’s Municipal Code has a threshold of 90 dBA at 25 feet for operation of any individual piece of construction equipment. Construction of the proposed project would generally occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Construction activities would not occur outside of the hours specified in San Mateo Municipal Code Section 7.30.060e. Therefore, construction noise impacts from the Aragon High School site would be less than significant.

Capuchino High School Site. Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise levels that could affect sensitive receptors near the project site, particularly the single-family residences surrounding the site. As indicated in Table 4.4-10, temporary construction activities could generate noise levels of up to 73.4 dBA at the closest residential use 170 feet to the south. The City of San Bruno has a threshold of 85 dBA for operation of any individual piece of equipment between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 p.m, measured at 100 feet, and 60 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM Construction of the proposed project would generally occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. No construction activity would occur between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM Since the highest potential noise impact from construction equipment is less than the 85 dBA at 100 feet threshold, construction noise impacts from the Capuchino High School site would be less than significant.

Hillsdale High School Site. Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise levels that could affect sensitive receptors near the project site, particularly the single-family residences surrounding the site. As indicated in Table 4.4-10, temporary construction activities could generate noise levels of up to 79.9 dBA at the closest residential use 80 feet to the northwest. The City of San Mateo’s Municipal Code has a threshold of 90 dBA for operation of any individual piece of equipment. Construction of the proposed project would generally occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Construction activities would not occur outside of the hours specified in San Mateo Municipal

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-22 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Code Section 7.30.060e. Therefore, construction noise impacts from the Hillsdale High School site would be less than significant.

Mills High School Site. Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise levels that could affect sensitive receptors near the project site, particularly the single- family residences surrounding the site. As indicated in Table 4.4-10, temporary construction activities could generate noise levels of up to 72.4 dBA at the closest residential use, which is located 190 feet to the northwest. Construction of the proposed project would generally occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Construction activities at Mills High School would be restricted to the hours of 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekends. These activities would be within the hours specified for allowable construction in the Municipal Code. Also, by limiting construction activities to the times listed above, those activities would support the City of Millbrae General Plan Noise Element Goal to reduce construction noise between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM Therefore, construction noise impacts from the Mills High School site would be less than significant.

San Mateo High School Site. Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary noise levels that could affect sensitive receptors near the project site, particularly the single-family residences surrounding the site. As indicated in Table 4.4-10, temporary construction activities could generate noise levels of up to 79.9 dBA at the closest residential use, which is located 80 feet to the northwest. The City of San Mateo’s Municipal Code has a threshold of 90 dBA for operation of any individual piece of equipment. Construction of the proposed project would generally occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Construction activities would not occur outside of the hours specified in San Mateo Municipal Code Section 7.30.060e. Therefore, construction noise impacts from the San Mateo High School site would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.

Significance After Mitigation. Noise impacts related to construction activities at the five project sites would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact N-2 Noise from proposed future activities on the fields at all five project sites would exceed an hourly L50 of 60 dBA at the adjacent residential land uses. Therefore, the noise impact from project-related activities on the fields would be significant and unavoidable.

The hourly L50 noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors for all stadium activities related to the proposed project (including football, soccer, and lacrosse games, practices, and community activities) were estimated based on measured noise levels for various existing activities and adjustments using noise level modeling to account for changes to noise levels that would result from future project-related activities. The estimated hourly L50 noise levels associated with project activities at the five project sites are described below.

Aragon High School Site. Table 4.4-11 shows that noise from football, soccer and lacrosse games would exceed an L50 of 60 dBA at the homes on Hobart Avenue and across Alameda de las Pulgas. This would be a significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-23 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-11 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities Aragon High School

Hourly L50 (dBA) Soccer and High Ambient Football Lacrosse School Community Receiver* Evening Games Games Practices Games

ST-1-A Homes on Hobart 52 67 64 54 59

Homes Across ST-2-A Alameda de las 60 67 64 54 59 Pulgas Homes on ST-3-A 46 59 56 47 52 Woodland Drive

Capuchino High School Site. Table 4.4-12 shows that noise levels from football, soccer and lacrosse games would exceed an L50 of 60 dBA at all receptor locations. This would be a significant impact.

Table 4.4-12 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities Capuchino High School

Hourly L50 (dBA) Soccer and High Ambient Football Lacrosse School Community Receiver* Evening Games Games Practices Games Homes on Park LT-1-C 53 66 63 54 59 Blvd.

Homes on ST-1-C 47 65 62 52 57 Barcelona Drive

Backyard of Home R-1-C 46 65 62 52 57 Nearest Field

Hillsdale High School Site. Table 4.4-13 shows that noise from football, soccer, and lacrosse games would exceed an L50 of 60 dBA at the homes across Alameda de Las Pulgas and 31st Avenue. Also, ambient evening noise and noise from community games would exceed an L50 of 60 dBA at the homes across Alameda de las Pulgas. This would be a significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-24 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-13 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities Hillsdale High School

Hourly L50 (dBA) Soccer and High Ambient Football Lacrosse School Community Receiver* Evening Games Games Practices Games Homes on West ST-1-H 49 59 56 50 55 Hillsdale Blvd. Homes Across ST-2-H Alameda de las 61 69 66 56 61 Pulgas Home Across 31st ST-3-H 52 67 64 54 59 Avenue

Homes at end of ST-4-H 49 58 55 45 50 Heather Lane

Mills High School Site. Table 4.4-14 shows that noise levels during football, soccer and lacrosse games would exceed an L50 of 60 dBA at the homes on Millbrae Avenue. This would be a significant impact.

Table 4.4-14 Increase in Leq Due to Evening Field Activities Mills High School

Hourly L50 (dBA) Soccer and High Ambient Football Lacrosse School Community Receiver* Evening Games Games Practices Games Homes on Millbrae LT-1-M 56 67 64 54 59 Avenue

Homes on Sequoia ST-1-M 45 59 56 46 51 Avenue

San Mateo High School Site. Table 4.4-15 shows that noise from field activities would exceed an L50 of 60 dBA at both receiver locations during football games and at the Woodlake apartments during soccer, lacrosse, and community games. This would be a significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-25 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-15 L50 Due to Evening Field Activities San Mateo High School

Hourly L50 (dBA) Soccer and High Ambient Football Lacrosse School Community Receiver* Evening Games Games Practices Games Homes on North ST-1-SM 52 63 60 51 56 Delaware St.

Woodlake ST-2-SM 50 69 66 56 61 Apartments

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not feasible. The use of noise barriers was analyzed for the five project sites. In all five cases, no feasible noise barrier could be constructed to reduce the hourly L50 noise levels below 60 dBA for the nearby sensitive receptors. As described above, the noise levels above the L50 60 dBA threshold are mainly associated with crowd noise. In order to reduce these noise levels, a physical barrier that breaks the line of sight between the stadium bleachers and the nearby homes would be required. For multi-story residences, such as the Woodlake Apartments, an effective noise barrier would need to be up to 30 feet tall. In other cases, such as at Hillsdale and Mills high schools, the noise barrier would need to run the entire length of the field. For all project sites, an effective noise barrier to reduce game-time noise levels below the L50 60 dBA threshold would not be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area. Also, the barriers would introduce new potential seismic safety impacts depending on the type of barrier constructed and the site-specific geologic conditions. Finally, the barriers would introduce a public safety hazard by providing a visual barrier behind which criminals could lurk or abscond.

Significance After Mitigation. The proposed project’s impact related to hourly L50 noise levels for nearby sensitive receptors during field activities at all five project sites would remain significant and unavoidable without feasible mitigation.

Impact N-3 Noise from the proposed future PA systems at all five project sites would not exceed 65 dBA at the nearest property line. Therefore, the noise impact from the proposed future PA systems would be less than significant.

The noise levels at nearby property lines from the proposed future PA systems were calculated using acoustic design software as described above. The modeling results for future PA noise at the five project sites are described below.

Aragon High School Site. Table 4.4-16 compares the noise levels of the existing PA system with those calculated for the new sound system. The results show that a decrease of 3 to 4 dBA is expected at the neighboring sensitive receptors along Alameda de las Pulgas (measurement location 2) and Hobart Avenue (measurement location 1). As shown in Figure 4.4-8, noise levels from the system meet the District’s 65 dBA criterion at the neighboring property line. Therefore, noise from the PA system would result in a less than significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-26 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-16 Comparison of Noise Levels from Existing and Proposed PA Systems Aragon High School

Noise Level (Lmax, dBA)

Existing Future Difference Location 1 604 Hobart Avenue 66 62 -4

2 901 Alameda de las Pulgas 60 57 -3

Figure 4.4-8 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Aragon High School

Capuchino High School Site. A determination of the potential change in PA noise was not feasible since football games were not measured at Capuchino High School. However, according to Figure 4.4-9, noise from the proposed PA system would meet the District’s 65 dBA criterion at the neighboring property line. Therefore, noise from the PA system would result in a less than significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-27 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Figure 4.4-9 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Capuchino High School

Hillsdale High School Site. Table 4.4-17 compares the noise levels of the existing PA system with those calculated for the new sound system. The results show that a decrease of 8 and 12 dBA is expected at the neighboring sensitive receptors along Hillsdale Blvd. (measurement location 1) and Alameda de las Pulgas (measurement location 2). Noise levels from the system would meet the District’s 65 dBA criterion at the neighboring property line (See Figure 4.4-10). Therefore, noise from the PA system would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.4-17 Comparison of Noise Levels from Existing and Proposed PA Systems Hillsdale High School

Noise Level (Lmax, dBA)

Existing Future Difference Location 1 512 W Hillsdale Blvd. 62 54 -8

2 3133 Alameda de las Pulgas 73 61 -12

3 526 31st Ave, 72 61 -11

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-28 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Figure 4.4-10 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Hillsdale High School

Mills High School Site. A determination of the potential change in PA noise was not feasible since football games were not measured at Mills H.S. However, according to Figure 4.4- 11, noise from the proposed PA system would meet the District’s 65 dBA criterion at the neighboring property line. Therefore, noise from the PA system would result in a less than significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-29 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Figure 4.4-11 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) Mills High School

San Mateo High School Site. Table 4.4-18 compares the noise levels of the existing PA system with those calculated for the new sound system. The results show a decrease of 1 to 3 dBA at the neighboring sensitive receptors along North Delaware Street (measurement location 1) and Woodlake Apartments (measurement location 2). In addition, the noise level from the system is calculated to meet the District’s 65 dBA criterion at the neighboring property line (See Figure 4.4-12). Therefore, noise from the PA system would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.4-18 Comparison of Noise Levels from Existing and Proposed PA Systems San Mateo High School

Noise Level (Lmax, dBA)

Location Existing Future Difference 1 629 N Delaware Street 57 56 -1

2 Woodlake Apartments 66 63 -3

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-30 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Figure 4.4-12 Noise Contours for Proposed PA System (dBA) San Mateo High School

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.

Significance After Mitigation. Noise impacts related to the proposed PA systems at the five project sites would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact N-4 The daily CNEL at sensitive receptors on a day with a proposed nighttime football game would increase by more than 3 dBA for nearby sensitive receptors at three of the five project sites. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The existing and future CNEL at sensitive receptors on a game day was compared based on noise level measurements and modeling results for future game-day noise levels. The existing and future game-day CNEL for nearby sensitive receptors at the five project sites is described below.

Aragon High School. Table 4.4-19 compares the existing and future CNEL on a Varsity game day. The noise level at most receptor locations would increase by less than 3 dBA. This is considered a less than significant impact. Homes on Hobart would experience an increase of 3.3 dBA and this is considered a significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-31 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-19 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Aragon High School

CNEL (dBA)

Receiver* Noise Source Existing Future Increase Football Game 59.4 64.5

ST-1-A Homes on Hobart Ave. Ambient 59.4 59.4

Total 62.4 65.7 3.3

Football Game 59.5 64.6 Homes Across ST-2-A Ambient 67.4 67.4 Alameda de las Pulgas Total 68.0 69.2 1.2

Football Game 52.0 57.1 Homes on Woodland ST-3-A Ambient 53.3 53.3 Drive Total 55.7 58.6 2.9

Capuchino High School. Table 4.4-20 compares the existing and future CNEL on a Varsity game day. Based on the comparison, the noise level would increase by less than 3 dBA at receptors LT-1-C and ST-1-C. The noise level at R-1-C, which is located closest to the field, could experience a 4.4 dBA increase. This is considered a significant impact.

Table 4.4-20 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Capuchino High School

CNEL (dBA)

Receiver* Noise Source Existing Future Increase Football Game 59.0 64.1

LT-1-C Homes on Park Blvd. Ambient 60.7 60.7

Total 62.9 65.8 2.8

Football Game 57.3 62.5 Homes on Barcelona ST-1-C Ambient 60.7 60.7 Drive Total 62.3 64.7 2.3

Football Game 57.7 62.9 Backyard of Home R-1-C Ambient 52.7 52.7 Nearest Field Total 58.9 63.3 4.4

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-32 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Hillsdale High School. Table 4.4-21 compares the existing and future CNEL on a Varsity game day. Based on the comparison, the noise level at all receptor locations would increase by less than 3 dBA. This is considered a less than significant impact.

Table 4.4-21 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Hillsdale High School

CNEL (dBA)

Receiver* Noise Source Existing Future Increase Football Game 51.6 56.8 Homes on West ST-1-H Ambient 56.0 56.0 Hillsdale Blvd. Total 57.3 59.4 2.1

Football Game 61.5 66.7 Homes Across ST-2-H Ambient 68.0 68.0 Alameda de las Pulgas Total 68.9 70.4 1.5

Football Game 59.1 64.3 Home Across 31st ST-3-H Ambient 63.2 63.2 Avenue Total 64.6 66.8 2.2

Football Game 50.6 55.7 Homes at end of ST-4-H Ambient 56.0 56.0 Heather Lane Total 57.1 58.9 1.8

Mills High School. Table 4.4-22 compares the existing and future CNEL on a Varsity game day. Based on the comparison, the noise levels would increase by less than 2 dBA. This is considered a less than significant impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-33 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-22 Increase in CNEL on Varsity Game Day Mills High School

CNEL (dBA)

Receiver* Noise Source Existing Future Increase Football Game 59.2 64.4 Homes on Millbrae LT-1-M Ambient 65.6 65.6 Avenue Total 66.5 68.0 1.5

Football Game 51.6 56.7 Homes on Sequoia ST-1-M Ambient 60.9 60.9 Avenue Total 61.4 62.3 0.9

San Mateo High School. Table 4.4-23 compares the existing and future CNEL on a game day. Based on the comparison, the noise level at the homes on Delaware would experience an increase of up to 2.6 dBA. This is less than significant. However, the Woodlake Apartments would experience an increase of 4.1 dBA. This is considered a significant impact.

Table 4.4-23 Increase in CNEL on a Varsity Game Day San Mateo High School

Game Day CNEL (dBA)

Receiver* Noise Source Existing Future Increase Football Game 56.0 61.1 Homes on North ST-1-SM Ambient 58.5 58.5 Delaware St. Total 60.5 63.0 2.6

Football Game 61.2 66.3 Woodlake ST-2-SM Ambient 57.5 57.5 Apartments Total 62.7 66.8 4.1

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not feasible. The use of noise barriers to reduce the increase in game-day CNEL below the 3 dBA threshold was analyzed for the project sites at Aragon, Capuchino, and San Mateo high schools. At those three project sites, no feasible noise barrier could be constructed to reduce the increase in game-day CNEL below 3 dBA for the nearby sensitive receptors. As described above under Impact N-2, effective barriers at those sites would introduce new potential impacts, such as aesthetic impacts and seismic safety concerns. Also, solid sound walls would introduce a public safety hazard by providing a visual barrier behind which criminals could lurk or abscond.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-34 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Significance After Mitigation. The proposed project’s impact related to increases in game-day CNEL for nearby sensitive receptors during Varsity football games at three of the five project sites would remain significant and unavoidable without feasible mitigation.

Impact N-5 The increase in the annual average CNEL for nearby sensitive receptors due to all project-related activities would be less than 3 dBA at all five project sites. This impact would be less than significant.

The annual average CNEL that would result from allowing football, soccer, lacrosse, practices, and other non-school activities on the fields at night is described for the five project sites below.

Aragon High School Site. Table 4.4-24 shows the change in the annual average CNEL as a result of the increased nighttime activities. The table shows that the annual average CNEL would increase by less than 1 dBA at all receiver locations and this is considered less than significant.

Table 4.4-24 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Aragon High School

Annual Average CNEL (dBA) Receiver Existing Future Increase ST-1-A Homes on Hobart Ave. 59.6 60.6 1.0 ST-2-A Homes Across Alameda de las Pulgas 67.4 67.6 0.2 ST-3-A Homes on Woodland Drive 53.4 54.2 0.8

Capuchino High School Site. Table 4.4-25 shows the change in the annual average CNEL as a result of the increased nighttime activities. The table shows that the annual average CNEL would increase by less than 3 dBA at all receiver locations and this is considered less than significant.

Table 4.4-25 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Capuchino High School

Annual Average CNEL (dBA) Receiver Existing Future Increase LT-1-C Homes on Park Blvd. 60.8 61.6 0.7 ST-1-C Homes on Barcelona Drive 60.8 61.3 0.5 R-1-C Backyard of Home Nearest Field 53.3 55.7 2.4

Hillsdale High School Site. Table 4.4-26 shows the change in the annual average CNEL as a result of the increased nighttime activities. The table shows that the annual average CNEL would increase by less than 1 dBA at all receiver locations and this is considered less than significant.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-35 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-26 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Hillsdale High School

Annual Average CNEL (dBA) Receiver Existing Future Increase ST-1-H Homes on West Hillsdale Blvd. 56.1 57.0 0.8 ST-2-H Homes Across Alameda de las Pulgas 68.0 68.3 0.3 ST-3-H Home Across 31st Avenue 63.3 63.7 0.4

Mills High School Site. Table 4.4-27 shows the change in the annual average CNEL as a result of the increased nighttime activities. The table shows that the annual average CNEL would increase by less than 1 dBA at all receiver locations and this is considered less than significant.

Table 4.4-27 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities Mills High School

Annual Average CNEL (dBA) Receiver Existing Future Increase LT-1-M Homes on Millbrae Avenue 65.6 65.9 0.3 ST-1-M Homes on Sequoia Avenue 61.0 61.1 0.1

San Mateo High School Site. Table 4.4-28 shows the change in the annual average CNEL as a result of the increased nighttime activities. The table shows that the annual average CNEL would increase by less than 3 dBA and this is considered less than significant.

Table 4.4-28 Increase in Annual Average CNEL from All Field Activities San Mateo High School

Annual Average CNEL (dBA) Receiver Existing Future Increase ST-1-SM Homes across Delaware 58.6 59.2 0.6 T-2-SM Woodlake Apartments 57.9 59.9 2.0

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.

Significance After Mitigation. Noise impacts related to an increase in the annual average CNEL at the five project sites would be less than significant without mitigation.

Impact N-6 Project-generated traffic would incrementally increase noise levels on area roadways. However, the change in noise from traffic generated by the proposed project would not exceed FTA noise thresholds under typical conditions. Therefore, the effect of increased traffic noise on existing uses would be less than significant.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-36 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

The addition of stadium lighting will allow for sporting events, such as football games, to take place at nighttime. As a result, implementation of the proposed project at all five sites would incrementally increase the number of vehicle trips to and from the sites, which would increase traffic noise on area roadways. The main sources of existing noise on and adjacent to the project sites are traffic noise from adjacent and nearby roadways, including local roadways, U.S. Highway 101, State Routes 82 and 92, and Interstate 280; aircraft takeoffs and landings at San Francisco International Airport (for Capuchino High School and Mills High School); and noise from existing school activities such as daytime sports practices and games, rallies, assemblies, and lunch periods.

The land uses surrounding the five project sites are similar (mostly single-family residential), and therefore traffic noise increases would result in similar impacts to sensitive receptors as well. Based on the project traffic study (See Appendix F), the greatest percentage increase in traffic volume would occur on the roadways in the vicinity of Capuchino High School: Crystal Springs Road, Millwood Drive, and Park Boulevard. Therefore, the greatest increase in traffic noise would occur on roadways surrounding Capuchino High School. These roadway segments include a mix of both busy streets with high traffic volume and streets along quiet residential neighborhoods. For the purpose of this analysis, the traffic noise increases at Capuchino High School during the evening hours prior to a Varsity football game are considered representative of the worst-case scenario for an increase in traffic noise and also provide a balanced range of baseline traffic noise levels that is comparable to existing traffic noise levels at the other four project sites. Table 4.4-29 below shows the increase in peak hour noise levels from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at Capuchino High School, when the greatest increase in traffic would occur (due to spectators arriving at a football game).

Table 4.4-29 Noise Levels Associated with Existing Plus Project Traffic on Area Roadways* (dBA Leq) Change In Modelled Change in Noise Level Modelled Existing Traffic FTA Impact Due to Significant Roadway Existing Plus Project Volume Threshold Project Impact? Capuchino High School Millwood Drive 57.3 60.6 +114% 3 3.3 Yes Crystal Springs Road 58.4 59.2 +21% 3 0.8 No Park Boulevard 57.6 58.4 +20% 3 0.8 No See Noise Modeling Data sheets in Appendix E of this document. The traffic noise levels for existing conditions that are predicted by the Traffic Noise Model were validated based on noise measurements taken on March 18th and April 1st, 2016 at two of the three locations described above. The measured results for existing traffic noise levels are within 3.0 dB of the modeled traffic noise levels. Therefore, it is assumed that the Traffic Noise Model accurately predicts potential increases in traffic noise associated with the proposed project.

As shown in Table 4.4-29 above, the change in noise level at Crystal Springs Road and Park Boulevard would be less than significant when compared to the FTA impact threshold. The increase in noise level for sensitive receptors along Millwood Drive would exceed the 3 dBA threshold. This increase in the traffic volume along Millwood Drive would more than double

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-37 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

directly as a result of Varsity football game spectator traffic associated with the proposed project. However, the substantial traffic noise increase on Millwood Drive would only occur up to eight times per year (immediately before and after Varsity football games) and would only occur for a maximum duration of two hours total per event. This traffic noise increase would not be typical of the traffic noise associated with proposed project activities during the vast majority of the year. Therefore, traffic noise associated with proposed project activities would not exceed FTA thresholds under typical conditions, and this impact would be less than significant.

Because the increase in traffic volume and noise on roadways surrounding Capuchino High School prior to a Varsity football game is considered representative of the maximum change in traffic-related noise levels at the other four project sites, the increase in traffic noise on roadways surrounding the other four project sites would also be less than significant. Roadways surrounding the other four project sites may experience short-term vehicle noise increases that exceed the 3 dBA threshold, but those increases would not be frequent or long- term. As with Capuchino High School, the largest potential traffic-related noise increases at the other four project sites would be associated with traffic to and from nighttime Varsity football games. Traffic increases associated with nighttime Varsity football games would only occur up to eight times per year for a maximum duration of two hours total per event.

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.

Significance After Mitigation. Noise impacts related to project-related traffic at the five project sites would be less than significant without mitigation.

c. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative development in the cities of San Mateo, Millbrae, and San Bruno and surrounding areas would not combine with the noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant.

Temporary Construction Impacts. Construction of the proposed project and related projects in the area, as identified in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, could contribute to a cumulative construction noise impact. Construction activities associated with the projects identified in Table 3-1 would generate similar noise levels compared to the proposed project. As discussed above, these noise levels generally would not exceed any local threshold because the applicable noise ordinances contain exemptions for temporary construction noise. Construction noise is localized and rapidly attenuates within an urban environment. Therefore, related projects outside the immediate site vicinity would be located too far from the project sites to contribute to increases in ambient noise levels associated with construction in the project area. The project’s contribution to the cumulative increase would be less than cumulatively considerable. Cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts. Traffic noise impacts associated with cumulative development within the cities of San Mateo, San Bruno, and Millbrae would incrementally increase noise levels along roadways and could potentially subject sensitive receptors to noise exceeding FTA standards. As shown below in Table 4.4-30, the change in noise level at Crystal Springs Road and Park Boulevard would be less than significant when compared to the FTA impact threshold under cumulative conditions. The increase in noise level for sensitive receptors along

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-38 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

Millwood Drive would exceed the 3 dBA threshold. However, as described above under Impact N-6, the substantial cumulative traffic noise increase on Millwood Drive would only occur up to eight times per year (immediately before and after Varsity football games) and would only occur for a maximum duration of two hours total per event. This traffic noise increase would not be typical of the traffic noise associated with proposed project and cumulative activities during the vast majority of the year. Therefore, traffic noise associated with proposed project and cumulative activities would not exceed FTA thresholds under typical conditions, and this impact would be less than significant. Because the increase in traffic volume and noise on roadways surrounding Capuchino High School prior to a Varsity football game is considered representative of the maximum change in traffic-related noise levels at the other four project sites, the cumulative increase in traffic noise on roadways surrounding the other four project sites would also be less than significant.

Table 4.4-30 Noise Levels Associated with Cumulative Plus Project Traffic on Area Roadways* (dBA Leq)

Change In Cumulative FTA Impact Noise Level Significant Roadway Cumulative Plus Project Threshold Due to Project Impact? Capuchino High School Milwood Drive 57.4 60.6 3 3.2 Yes

Crystal Springs Road 59.7 60.3 3 0.6 No

Park Boulevard 58.4 59.1 3 0.7 No See Noise Modeling Data sheets in Appendix G of this document.

As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, proposed and pending development in the City and surrounding areas would include approximately 942,900 square feet of non-residential development and 481 residential units. This cumulative development would result in stationary (non-traffic) operational noise increases in the vicinity of the project sites. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant noise impact for nearby sensitive receptors during Varsity football games at all five project sites. However, based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative operational (non-traffic) noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with project- specific noise impacts, would not have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable adverse effects. Cumulative operational stationary (non-traffic) noise exposure would be less than significant.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-39 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.4 Noise

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.4-40 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

4.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

This section evaluates potential impacts relating to transportation and traffic on and around the project sites. The information on transportation and traffic impacts is taken from the San Mateo Union High School District Stadium Lighting Project Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by DKS Associates (Appendix F of this EIR). The transportation analysis for the project was prepared according to standard methodologies and consistent with local standards. Particular attention was given to operational impacts at intersections within the project study area and impacts on parking at and around the stadium sites.

The addition of lighting at the school stadiums would shift stadium events currently held during daylight hours to evening hours, enabling larger attendance. The traffic study focused on the scenario for an evening football game, as these are anticipated to have the highest attendance and potentially generate the most traffic. This high attendance scenario is expected to occur approximately eight times per year and is not representative of the majority of evenings under the proposed project conditions.

The following scenarios were evaluated as part of this study:

• Existing conditions • Existing plus Project conditions • Background conditions • Background plus Project conditions • Cumulative conditions • Cumulative plus Project conditions

4.5.1 Setting

a. Study Intersections. A total of 44 intersections were selected for analysis of potential impacts within the study area. The study intersections were selected by examining potential routes to and from the school stadium sites with the potential for impacts from project traffic. Intersections at freeway ramps and Congestion Management Program intersections were also included. The study intersections along with their relevant jurisdictions include the following:

1. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Road (San Bruno/Caltrans) 2. Cunningham Way & Crystal Spring Road (San Bruno) 3. El Camino Real & San Felipe Avenue (San Bruno/ Caltrans) 4. El Camino Real & Santa Inez Avenue/Park Place (Millbrae /Caltrans) 5. El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue (Millbrae /Caltrans) 6. Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park Boulevard (Millbrae) 7. Santa Florita Avenue & Park Boulevard (Millbrae) 8. El Camino Real & Millwood Drive (Millbrae/Caltrans) 9. Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive (Millbrae) 10. El Camino Real & Hillcrest Boulevard (Millbrae/Caltrans) 11. El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue (Millbrae/Caltrans) 12. US 101 NB Off‐ramp & Millbrae Avenue (Millbrae/Caltrans)

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-1 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

13. US 101 SB Off‐ramp & Millbrae Avenue (Millbrae/Caltrans) 14. Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue (Millbrae) 15. El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue (Caltrans/San Mateo County CMP/Millbrae) 16. Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue (Millbrae) 17. El Camino Real & Murchison Drive (Burlingame/Caltrans) 18. S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison Drive (Burlingame) 19. Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive (Millbrae) 20. El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive (Burlingame/Caltrans) 21. Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive (Burlingame) 22. Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB ramps (San Mateo/Caltrans) 23. Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Avenue (San Mateo) 24. North Humboldt Street & Peninsula Avenue (San Mateo) 25. Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue (San Mateo) 26. North Amphlett Boulevard & East Polar Ave/US 101 SB ramps (San Mateo) 27. North Humboldt Street & East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo) 28. North Delaware Street & East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo) 29. North San Mateo Drive & East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo) 30. El Camino Real & East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo/Caltrans) 31. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Road (San Mateo/Caltrans) 32. Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Road (San Mateo) 33. El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs Road (San Mateo) 34. Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Drive (San Mateo) 35. Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB ramps (San Mateo) 36. Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB ramps (San Mateo) 37. Alameda de las Pulgas & West 20th Avenue (San Mateo) 38. El Camino Real & 31st Avenue (San Mateo/Caltrans) 39. Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Avenue (San Mateo) 40. Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue (San Mateo) 41. El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Boulevard (San Mateo) 42. Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Boulevard (San Mateo) 43. Del Monte Street & West Hillsdale Boulevard (San Mateo) 44. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Avenue (San Mateo)

b. Existing Roadway Network. This section describes the regional roadway network serving the project study area as well as the local access routes surrounding each school site.

Regional Facilities. The project area is surrounded by several regional routes: Interstate 280 (I-280), Interstate 380 (I-380), US Highway 101 (US-101), and State Route 92 (SR-92). In addition, State Route 82 (SR-82/El Camino Real) bisects the study area in a north-south direction. These facilities fall under the jurisdiction of Caltrans for maintenance and operations.

• I-280 is an eight-lane freeway that runs north-south to the west of the study area and provides access to and from the North Bay and South Bay. Exits serving the study sites are located at Crystal Springs Road, Skyline Boulevard, Hillcrest Boulevard, and Trousdale Drive. I-280 connects with SR-92 to the south of the project study area.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

• US-101 is an eight‐lane freeway that runs north‐south to the east of the study area and also provides access to and from the North Bay and South Bay. US-101 runs at grade throughout the study area. Ramps or interchanges serving the study sites include, from south to north: East Hillsdale Boulevard, the SR-92 interchange, East 3rd and East 4th Avenue, Dore Avenue, East Poplar Avenue, Millbrae Avenue, and San Bruno Avenue. • I-380 is a multi-lane freeway connecting I-280 and U.S. 101 to the north of the study area. On/off ramps connect I-380 to SR-82/El Camino Real. • SR-92 runs east to west in the southern portion of the study area, connecting US 101 and the San Mateo Bridge to the east and I-280 and coastal San Mateo County to the west. Within the study area, SR-92 is a four-lane freeway with a cloverleaf interchange with SR-82/El Camino Real. Additional interchanges within the study area include those at Alameda de las Pulgas and West Hillsdale Boulevard. • SR-82/El Camino Real is a four- to six-lane arterial that runs north to south throughout the study area and parallel to the west of US 101. Fourteen of the study intersections are located along SR-82/El Camino Real.

Facilities Serving Capuchino High School. Capuchino High School is located approximately two blocks west of SR-82/El Camino Real. Access from El Camino Real is provided by Park Boulevard and Millwood Drive. The school site location and local roadway network with intersection geometries are shown in Figure 4.5-1.

• Park Boulevard is a two lane roadway connecting with SR-82 and running along the northwest edge of the campus. There is marked on-street parking between SR-82 and Magnolia Avenue with diagonal parking to mid-block. The entrance to the parking lot adjacent to the stadium is located at the intersection of Santa Florita Avenue and Park Boulevard. • Millwood Drive is another two lane roadway leading to SR-82 and running along the southeast edge of the campus. There is diagonal on-street on the southeast side of Millwood Drive between Broadway and SR-82. The main access to the campus is near the intersection of Millwood Drive and Magnolia Avenue. • Magnolia Avenue runs along the northeast edge of campus between Park Boulevard and Millwood Drive. • Crystal Springs Road is a two-lane arterial running east to west approximately one half mile north of the campus. A route to the campus from I-280 would pass through the study intersection of Crystal Springs Road and Cunningham Way. This roadway is narrow with no on-street parking between Cunningham Way and Donner Avenue.

Facilities Serving Mills High School. Mills High School is located one block west of SR- 82/El Camino Real. Access to the campus is via Millbrae Avenue, Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive. The campus is bounded by Millbrae Avenue to the northwest, South Magnolia Avenue to the northeast, Murchison Drive to the southeast, and Sequoia Avenue to the southwest. The school site location and local roadway network with intersection geometries are shown in Figure 4.5-2.

• Millbrae Avenue is a two-lane roadway with on-street parking in the vicinity of the campus running southwest to northeast. Northeast of South Magnolia Avenue, Millbrae

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

1. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

2. Cunningham Way/Driveway & Crystal Springs Rd

3. El Camino Real & San Felipe Ave

4. El Camino Real & Santa Inez Ave/Park Pl 5.El Camino Real & Park Blvd/San Diego Ave 6.Magnolia Ave/Park Pl & Park Blvd 7. Santa Florita Ave & Park Blvd/Driveway

8. El Camino Real & Millwood Dr 9. Magnolia Ave & Millwood Dr

LEGEND Figure 23 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Existing Lane Geometry - Stop Control Not to Scale Capuchino High School - Planned Lane Geometry NO SCALE / Lane Configuration

Source: DKS, 2016. Capuchino High School Lane Configuration Figure 4.5-1 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-4 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10. El Camino Real & Hillcrest Blvd 11. El Camino Real & Victoria Ave 12. US 101 NB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave 13. US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave

14. Rollins Rd & Millbrae Ave 15. El Camino Real & Millbrae Ave 16. Ashton Ave & Millbrae Ave 17. El Camino Real & Murchinson Dr

18. S Magnolia Ave & Murchinson Dr 19.Sequoia Ave & Murchinson Dr 20.El Camino Real & Trousdale Dr 21. Magnolia Ave & Trousdale Dr

LEGEND Figure 33 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Existing Lane Geometry - Stop Control Not to Scale Mills High School - Planned Lane Geometry NO SCALE / Lane Configuration

Source: DKS, 2016. Mills High School Lane Configuration Figure 4.5-2 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-5 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

widens to four lanes and provides access to/from the BART and Caltrain stations and US-101. • Murchison Drive, a two-lane roadway with on-street parking, provides access to the main entrance of the school. Traffic flows one way with the entrance driveway to the stadium and adjacent parking near the intersection of Murchison and Ogden Drive. The exit driveway is located at Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive. • South Magnolia Avenue is a two-lane roadway with on-street parking that connects Millbrae Avenue and Murchison Drive. • Trousdale Drive is a major arterial carrying east-west traffic. Routes to the school site from SR-82/El Camino Real via Trousdale Drive include Sequoia Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. • Sequoia Avenue is a two lane local roadway with on-street parking that connects with Murchison and Trousdale Drives. The school’s southwest parking lot is accessed via Sequoia Avenue.

Facilities Serving San Mateo High School. San Mateo High School is located between SR- 82/El Camino Real and US-101. The campus is bounded by East Poplar Avenue to the south, North Delaware Street to the west and North Humboldt Street to the east. Access to SR-82/El Camino Real and US-101 are provided by Peninsula Avenue to the north and East Poplar Avenue. The school site location and local roadway network with intersection geometries are shown in Figure 4.5-3.

• East Poplar Avenue is a two lane roadway with on-street parking connecting US-101 and SR-82/El Camino Real. • Peninsula Avenue has two lanes in the westbound direction and one lane in the eastbound direction between North Humboldt Street and North Delaware Street where study intersections are located. • North Delaware Street is a two lane local roadway providing access to the main entrance of the school and sports complex parking. On-street parking is restricted on the northeast side of the street adjacent to the school site. • North Humboldt Street is a two-lane local roadway connecting East Poplar Avenue and Peninsula Avenue, skirting the northeast edge of the campus. This street provides access to a school bus parking lot which does not appear to connect to the stadium area.

Facilities Serving Aragon High School. Aragon High School is located adjacent to Alameda de las Pulgas between Crystal Springs Road and SR-92/El Camino Real. The school site location and local roadway network with intersection geometries are shown in Figure 4.5-4.

• Alameda de las Pulgas is a four lane arterial running southeast from Crystal Springs Road to SR-92/El Camino Real and points south. It is a divided road south of Hobart Avenue. Adjacent to the campus, there are two lanes in each direction and on-street parking. Driveways serving the school campus may be accessed from Alameda de las Pulgas and the intersection with Woodland Drive is a study intersection. • Woodland Drive is a two lane roadway that provides access to the Aragon High School parking lot on the western edge of the campus.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-6 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

22. Airport Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp

23. Airport Blvd & Peninsula Ave

24. N Humboldt St & Peninsula Ave

25. Dwight Rd & Peninsula Ave

26. N Amphlett Blvd & E Polar Ave/US 101 27. N Humboldt St & E Poplar Ave 28. N Delaware St & E Poplar Ave 29. N San Mateo Dr & E Poplar Ave

30. El Camino Real & E Poplar Ave

LEGEND Figure 43 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Existing Lane Geometry - Stop Control Not to ScaleSan Mateo High School - Planned Lane Geometry NO SCALE / Lane Configuration

Source: DKS, 2016. San Mateo High School Lane Configuration Figure 4.5-3 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-7 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

31. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

32. Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Rd

33. El Cerrito Ave & Crystal Springs Rd

34. Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Dr

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp 36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp 37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

LEGEND Figure 53 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Existing Lane Geometry - Stop Control Not to Scale Aragon High School - Planned Lane Geometry NO SCALE / Lane Configuration

Source: DKS, 2016. Aragon High School Lane Configuration Figure 4.5-4 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-8 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

• Crystal Springs Road is the nearest east-west arterial to the north of the campus. This road is two lanes as it approaches the intersection with Alameda de las Pulgas and has a bicycle lane and sidewalks only on the south side. • West 20th Avenue is an east-west arterial between SR-82/El Camino Real and Alameda de las Pulgas in the vicinity south of the campus. It widens to four lanes, including a through-left and a right turn lane with a landscaped median as it approaches Alameda de las Pulgas.

Facilities Serving Hillsdale High School. The southernmost school site, Hillsdale High School, is located between State Routes 82 and 92 adjacent to Alameda de las Pulgas. The Hillsdale campus is accessed via West Hillsdale Boulevard and 31st Avenue. The school site location and local roadway network with intersection geometries are shown in Figure 4.5-5.

• Alameda de las Pulgas is a four lane, divided arterial running along the eastern edge of the campus. A stop for Sam Trans Route 250 is located near the intersection with 31st Avenue. The parking lot adjacent to the stadium is accessed from Alameda de las Pulgas. • West Hillsdale Boulevard is a two lane east-west arterial that would serve many trips to the campus. There are bicycle lanes and on-street parking between Del Monte Street and Alameda de las Pulgas. West Hillsdale Boulevard becomes a four-lane, divided roadway as it approaches the overcrossing of SR-82/El Camino Real from Edison Street. • 31st Avenue is a two-lane roadway running along the northern edge of the campus. On- street parking along 31st Avenue is marked along the south side of the street. The main school entrance and front parking lot are accessed via 31st Avenue, which becomes a four-lane, divided roadway as it approaches SR-82/El Camino Real from Edison Street. The segment approaching the study intersection includes dedicated left and right turning lanes. • Del Monte Street is a two-lane local facility running along the western edge of the campus between 31st Avenue and West Hillsdale Boulevard. On-street parking is marked along the east side of the roadway. Additional school parking is accessed from Del Monte Street.

c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access. With the exception of Class II bicycle lanes on West Hillsdale Boulevard near Hillsdale High School and Crystal Springs Road near Aragon High School, there are no bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the school campuses. The remainder of this section describes the pedestrian access points to the school stadiums.

Capuchino High School. Access to the Capuchino High School stadium from the surrounding neighborhood is limited to driveways and gateways as a fence surrounds much of the campus. Access from the south of campus would be from the corner of Millwood and Barcelona Drives and the driveway to the main parking lot between Barcelona Drive and Magnolia Avenue.

Access from the north of campus would be provided along Park Boulevard, where there are gateways into the campus near the intersections of Santa Florita and Cypress Avenues. The south side of Park Boulevard between the pedestrian access points lacks a sidewalk. Concerns

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-9 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp

36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp

37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

38. El Camino Real & 31st Ave

39. Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Ave 40. Del Monte St & 31st Ave 41. El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Blvd 42.Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Blvd

43.Del Monte St & W Hillsdale Blvd 44. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Ave

LEGEND Figure 63 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Existing Lane Geometry - Stop Control Not to Scale Hillsdale High School - Planned Lane Geometry NO SCALE / Lane Configuration

Source: DKS, 2016. Hillsdale High School Lane Configuration Figure 4.5-5 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-10 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

have been reported regarding the lack of paved sidewalks, poor lighting, and large numbers of pedestrians crossing Park Boulevard after events.

Mills High School. Pedestrian access to the Mills High School stadium would be largely from Millbrae Avenue as off street parking is anticipated to occur to the north of campus. A mixed use trail (the Spur Trail) runs parallel to Millbrae Avenue in this location. There are crosswalks at the intersections of Millbrae Avenue with Palm Avenue, Poplar Avenue, and Magnolia Avenue.

Pedestrians may also reach the stadium from the south of campus from the parking lots located along Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive. There are crosswalks at the intersections of Sequoia Avenue and Hawthorne Way, Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive, and Murchison Drive and Ogden Drive.

San Mateo High School. Pedestrian access to the San Mateo High School stadium would be mostly along North Delaware Street where parking is prohibited along the campus. There are school crosswalks located at the intersection of North Delaware Street and East Bellevue Avenue. Access would also be provided to the campus along East Poplar Avenue which has crosswalks at the intersections with North Delaware Street, North Eldorado Street, and North Humboldt Street. Pedestrian access to the campus may also be gained through a gate near the north corner of the campus along North Humboldt Street.

Aragon High School. The Aragon High School campus is served by a one-way internal access road that travels from Alameda de las Pulgas between Avila Road and Hobart Avenue to Woodland Drive. Pedestrian access points to the Aragon High School campus include the crosswalk on Woodland Road leading to the main parking lot, the internal access road at Alameda de las Pulgas and Castilian Way, the pedestrian path from Alameda de las Pulgas at Aragon Boulevard, and the internal access road entry point at Alameda de las Pulgas. There is a signalized crosswalk at Alameda de las Pulgas and Aragon Boulevard and an additional crosswalk at Hobart Avenue.

Hillsdale High School. The main pedestrian access routes to the Hillsdale High School campus are from Alameda de las Pulgas where there is a crosswalk at Stephen Road, and along 31st Avenue, where there are crosswalks at Fernwood Street, Lancaster Street, and Del Monte Street. There is also a route across campus to the stadium that may be reached from the parking lot at Del Monte Street.

d. Transit Facilities and Service

Regional Services. The study area enjoys regional transit access with both Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Caltrain. Caltrain has stations in Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, and downtown San Mateo. The Millbrae Station, serving BART and Caltrain, is a little over half a mile from the Mills High School Site. Due to the regional nature of these services, they are unlikely to serve much of the travel to and from the school sites on game days. The Mills High School site is most likely to see some use of the regional rail services being located approximately one mile east of both the Caltrain and BART Millbrae stations.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-11 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

SamTrans Bus Service. SamTrans operates local, express, and school day services within the study area. Note, however, that a number of the routes are school day services that do not operate after mid-afternoon and would not provide access to evening games at the stadiums. Therefore, use of bus transit to access the stadium sites for evening events is expected to be minimal. Additional detail on the bus routes serving each school site and location of bus stops may be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix F). Existing transit service routes in the study area are detailed in Figure 4.5-6a and Figure 4.5-6b.

e. Existing Parking Conditions. Parking counts at and near each high school campus were collected during the hours of 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM on a weekday to capture conditions expected during the peak demand period for high attendance events such as evening football games. The counts included both on-site parking as well as on-street parking within an 800 foot walk (approximately one sixth of a mile) of each stadium site. Table 4.5-1 summarizes the parking supply and utilization observed for this study.

Table 4.5-1 Existing Conditions Parking Analysis Existing Evening (8:00 PM – 9:00 PM) Parking Facility Capacity Occupancy Utilization Capuchino High School On-Site Parking 251 39 16% Nearby Street Parking 581 169 29% Total 832 208 25% Mills High School On-Site Parking 156 35 22% Nearby Street Parking 786 344 44% Total 942 379 40% San Mateo High School On-Site Parking 441 191 43% Nearby Street Parking 445 275 62% Total 886 466 53% Aragon High School On-Site Parking 191 40 21% Nearby Street Parking 642 128 20% Total 833 168 20% Hillsdale High School On-Site Parking 216 47 22% Nearby Street Parking 510 127 25% Total 726 174 24% Source: DKS Associates 2016

f. Existing Intersection Operations

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative assessment of an intersection’s performance during peak traffic periods. LOS is characterized by a letter grade – A though F – relating to the

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-12 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Not to Scale /

Source: DKS, 2016 Study Area Transit Service Map (North) Figure 4.5-6a San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-13 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Not to Scale /

Source: DKS, 2016 Study Area Transit Service Map (South) Figure 4.5-6b San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-14 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

average delay experienced at a signalized intersection or the worst approach delay at an unsignalized intersection. Details on the calculation of intersection LOS as well as the vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts that were collected as inputs may be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix F).

Most jurisdictions explicitly or implicitly specify the definitions of LOS contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 edition published by the Transportation Research Board. The HCM 2000 standard thresholds and definitions for intersection LOS were used in this study and are described in Table 4.5-2.

Table 4.5-2 LOS Thresholds and Definitions Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Signalized Unsignalized Level of Service Intersections Intersections Description Free flow/ A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 Insignificant Delay Stable Operation/ B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 Minimal Delay Stable Operation/ C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 Acceptable Delay Approaching Unstable/ D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 Tolerable Delay Unstable Operation/ E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50 Significant Delay Forced Flow/ F > 80 > 50 Excessive Delay Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Notes: Worst Approach Delay (in seconds per vehicle) for unsignalized intersections

This study calculated intersection LOS for two time periods corresponding to the expected arrival and departure times for high attendance events such as evening football games. Trip arrivals are expected to occur between 6:00 and 8:00 PM and departures would occur between 8:00 and 10:00 PM. Under Existing conditions, all but three of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the 6:00 to 8:00 PM period. As shown Table 4.5-3, the following intersections currently operate at LOS F during the 6:00 to 8:00 PM period:

• El Camino Real and Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue • El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue • North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue

Existing 8:00 to 10:00 PM levels of service are summarized in Table 4.5-4. All intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the 8:00 to 10:00 PM time period under Existing conditions.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-15 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Table 4.5-3 Existing Intersection Level of Service 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM Existing 6:00 -8:00 PM # Intersections Control (1) LOS (2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino High School 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Road Signalized B 0.58 19.2 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Road Signalized C 0.45 20.4 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Avenue Signalized B 0.44 11.1 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Avenue Signalized B 0.48 15.7 5 El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue 2WSC F N/A >50 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park Boulevard AWSC A 0.23 8.8 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park Boulevard 1WSC A N/A 9.7 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC D N/A 34.3 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.14 7.8 Mills High School 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Boulevard Signalized B 0.43 13.7 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized A 0.37 3.5 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Avenue Signalized B 0.48 11.6 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Avenue Signalized B 0.66 12.9 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized D 0.96 41.2 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized F 1.26 >80 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC B 0.62 12.4 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized C 0.50 26.6 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC B 0.58 12.9 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.30 8.4 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.50 26.1 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.28 23.2 San Mateo High School 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB ramps Signalized B 0.59 13.0 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Avenue Signalized B 0.62 17.2 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Avenue Signalized C 0.76 34.9 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized A 0.50 8.9 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Polar Avenue 3WSC F 2.75 >80 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.46 12.0 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Avenue Signalized C 0.62 26.7 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.41 17.2 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.55 16.2 Aragon High School 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Road Signalized B 0.58 13.3 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Road AWSC B 0.53 12.5 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs Road AWSC A 0.35 9.3 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Drive 1WSC B N/A 11.2 35 Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB ramps Signalized C 0.72 22.9

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-16 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Existing 6:00 -8:00 PM # Intersections Control (1) LOS (2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 36 Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB ramps Signalized C 0.52 26.1 37 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Avenue Signalized C 0.36 22.1 Hillsdale High School 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized C 0.47 24.4 39 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Avenue AWSC C 0.64 17.0 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.20 8.0 41 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Boulevard Signalized D 0.87 40.5 42 Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Boulevard AWSC C 0.78 22.3 43 Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale Boulevard AWSC B 0.49 11.0 44 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Avenue AWSC B 0.37 10.6 Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop control (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, 3WSC – three way, AWSC – all way) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2 Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds) Intersections not currently meeting the LOS standard are in bold

Table 4.5-4 Existing Intersection Level of Service 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM Existing 8:00 -10:00 PM # Intersections Control (1) LOS (2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino High School 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Road Signalized B 0.31 14.5 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Road Signalized B 0.28 18.7 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Avenue Signalized B 0.27 11.4 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Avenue Signalized B 0.29 12.1 5 El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue 2WSC C N/A 16.0 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park Boulevard AWSC A 0.12 7.7 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park Boulevard 1WSC A N/A 9.2 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC B N/A 14.6 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.07 7.4 Mills High School 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Boulevard Signalized B 0.26 15.6 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized A 0.22 3.2 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Avenue Signalized B 0.31 10.3 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Avenue Signalized B 0.43 11.0 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized C 0.56 30.3 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized D 0.87 39.4 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC A 0.24 8.2 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized C 0.22 28.8 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.22 8.2 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.12 7.4

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-17 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Existing 8:00 -10:00 PM # Intersections Control (1) LOS (2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.24 24.7 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive C 0.15 22.5 San Mateo High School 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB ramps Signalized A 0.20 8.1 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Avenue Signalized B 0.38 14.5 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Avenue Signalized B 0.45 16.4 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized A 0.32 6.6 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Polar Avenue 3WSC C 0.96 17.4 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Avenue Signalized A 0.25 9.6 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Avenue Signalized C 0.31 22.6 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.19 15.5 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.34 11.2 Aragon High School 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Road Signalized A 0.32 6.6 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Road AWSC A 0.14 8.0 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs Road AWSC A 0.10 7.3 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Drive 1WSC A N/A 9.4 35 Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB ramps Signalized B 0.33 18.6 36 Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB ramps Signalized C 0.22 21.6 37 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Avenue Signalized C 0.16 20.5 Hillsdale High School 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized C 0.29 24.7 39 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.30 9.7 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.14 7.5 41 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Boulevard Signalized C 0.72 34.0 42 Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Boulevard AWSC A 0.30 9.5 43 Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale Boulevard AWSC A 0.19 7.8 44 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Avenue AWSC A 0.14 8.0 Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop control (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, AWSC – all way) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2 Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds)

4.5.2 Impact Analysis

a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds

Intersection LOS and Standards of Significance. According to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-18 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); 5. Result in inadequate emergency access; 6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise degrade the performance or safety of such facilities.

An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A). The Initial Study analyzed potentially significant impacts that might occur from implementation of the proposed project. Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, transportation and traffic impacts related to air traffic, transportation design features, emergency access, public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities were found to be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to criteria 3, 4, 5, and 6 above are addressed in Appendix A and are not discussed further in this section. In addition, although parking impacts are discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix F), parking is not a component of the CEQA significance criteria and therefore is not analyzed further in this section.

Because the project encompasses multiple local jurisdictions, planning documents from each jurisdiction were consulted for guidance on operational standards and significance of impacts for roadway intersections. For the purposes of this analysis, the relevant LOS standards and significance criteria were applied for the jurisdiction where each study intersection was located. Table 4.5-5 summarizes the LOS standards for each jurisdiction in the project study area.

Table 4.5-5 LOS Standards by Jurisdiction Practice if Baseline LOS Jurisdiction LOS Standard is Below Standard Source City of San Bruno LOS D (not specified) General Plan adopted March 2009 City of San Mateo LOS D Average delay increases General Plan adopted by 4 seconds or more 2010 City of Millbrae LOS D (not specified) General Plan adopted November 1998 City of Burlingame No formally adopted standard Average delay increases N/A but local traffic studies have by 5 seconds or more historically assumed LOS D County of San Mateo D (for urban areas) Average delay increases Congestion Management by 4 seconds or more Plan adopted November 2011

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-19 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

In addition to the local LOS standards, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (CCAG) sets standards for roadway segments and intersections within San Mateo County’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP) network. One of the project study intersections, El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue, is part of the CMP system and has a LOS standard of “E”, which is less stringent than the local intersection standard. With the exception of this single CMP intersection, any scenario which causes an intersection to fall below LOS D was considered to have a significant impact for the purposes of this analysis. Potential impacts on signalized intersections with a baseline LOS already below the standard were evaluated according to local thresholds of additional average delay imposed by project traffic (as shown in Table 4.5-5 above) and engineering judgement.

Project Trip Generation

The trip generation rates developed for this analysis are intended to reflect large evening events, such as a football game or graduation ceremony. Under current conditions, one or two events per year are held during the evenings under portable lights. The proposed project would enable evening events to be held on a regular basis. The mostly highly-attended of these events by a considerable margin would be football games and graduations, which occur approximately 10 or fewer times per school year. These types of events were analyzed as a conservative approach to evaluating potential traffic impacts of the project, representing the highest anticipated attendance and traffic levels. Not only are football games and graduations historically the best attended, shifting some of the events from daylight hours to the evening could enable higher attendance from community members who were previously unable to attend during regular business hours. In addition, the expected arrival period of evening events (6:00 to 8:00 PM) can potentially overlap with the tail end of evening commute traffic patterns.

While the traffic volumes calculated as part of this analysis would be seen at most 10 times per year, thresholds of significance do not take into account the frequency of occurrence. Any potential impacts should be considered in the context of how often they would occur.

Table 4.5-6 shows the number of vehicle trips expected to be generated by the project for each school during the pre-event peak arrival period between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM for an event starting at 7:00 PM. These estimates use the trip generation rates shown in Table 4.5-7. Post- event trip generation, assumed to occur during a departure period of 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM, would then have the same number of trips with reverse directionality.

Table 4.5-6 Trip Generation Estimates by Campus Peak Hour Trips 2014-2015 Bleacher Percent Campus Enrollment* Capacity Occupied In Out Total Aragon HS 1423 698 100% 199 16 214 Capuchino HS 1105 1130 100% 322 26 347 Hillsdale HS 1349 988 100% 281 22 303 Mills HS 1214 919 100% 261 21 282 San Mateo HS 1555 3136 75% 669 53 722 * Source: California Department of Education Educational Demographics Unit

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-20 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Information on trip generation rates for high school sports stadiums is not readily available. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, an industry standard reference for trip generation, does not contain trip generation rates for a comparable land use. The trip generation characteristics for such high school facilities are likely to be fairly specific to each community, reflecting the level of interest in high school sports, demographics, and the transportation network among other factors. Therefore, a locally appropriate trip generation rate per stadium seat was calculated for this study, as described below.

Table 4.5-7 lists the assumptions underlying the calculation of trip generation rates for this study. These assumptions reflect an event with high attendance levels such as a Friday night football game or graduation ceremony which are expected to occur less than 10 times a year. The resulting rate, 0.31 vehicle trips per stadium seat, falls within the range of rates seen and implied in the literature (between 0.17 and 0.36). The calculation makes the conservative assumption that all of the stadium seats are filled for four of the school sites. Based on input from SMUHSD, the San Mateo High School bleachers are assumed to be only 75% full. Also based on SMUHSD input, the split between home school and visitor attendees is 70/30 and vehicle occupancy for visitors is higher than for home school attendees. The result of the difference in vehicle occupancy results in an 80/20 split for vehicle trips between home and visitors. Finally, it is assumed that about 10% of attendees from the home school are dropped off, generating both a trip in and out of the parking lot but that all visitor vehicles stay and park. Note that the trip generation rate does not separately account for additional trips by staff and athletes, which would not be included in the trip generation rate per seat. The majority of home team athletes and staff are assumed to arrive before the study period and the away team athletes and staff are assumed to arrive on a relatively small number of buses. Further explanation of the trip generation methodology is provided in Appendix F.

Table 4.5-7 Calculation of Trip Generation Rate for SMHUSD Factor Value Additional attendees 0 Home/visitor split 70/30 Auto mode share 0.97 Vehicle occupancy (home) 3 Vehicle occupancy (visitor) 5 Percent drop off 0.1 Percent stay and park 0.9 Trips in 0.28 Trips out 0.02 Total trips per occupied stadium seat 0.31 Source: DKS Associates, 2016

Project Trip Distribution.

Trips generated by the project were distributed among study intersections taking into consideration the school attendance area, the proportion of visitor trips to home school trips, the

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-21 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

location and observed utilization of parking facilities, and the likely direction of approach of trips for visitors and attendees from the home school. Total trips were distributed in a two-step process. First, 80% of total project trips assumed to be from the home school were distributed among study area intersections. Next, the 20% of trips assumed to be from visiting schools were then overlaid consecutively to different study area gateways, depending on the possible origins of the visitor trips relative to the home school. This resulted in a “worst case” scenario for each study area intersection (worst case scenarios for all study area intersections would not be expected to occur simultaneously).

Project-Generated Traffic Volumes.

The following sections describe the trip distribution of project-generated traffic for each school’s study area in more detail.

Capuchino High School. Figure 4.5-7 illustrates the assumed distribution of trips for the Capuchino High School study area. Based on observed parking utilization, approximately 20% of project trips are expected to park in Lot A, accessible from Park Boulevard, 40% are expected to use Lot B, along Millwood Drive, 20% would park on streets to the north of campus and the remaining 20% on streets to the south of campus.

Given the northernmost location of this school site, the 20% of project trips attributed to visitors were assumed to come from the south along El Camino Real, passing through the intersection with Millwood Drive. The remaining 80% of trips attributed to home school attendees are split between gateways at El Camino Real at Crystal Springs Road and Crystal Springs Road at Cunningham Way. Figure 4.5-8 shows the project turning movement volumes for the Capuchino High School study area.

Mills High School. Figure 4.5-9 illustrates the assumed distribution of trips for the Mills High School study area. Based on observed parking utilization, approximately 15% of project trips are expected to park in the shopping center lot at Murchison Drive and South Magnolia Avenue, 20% in Lot B along Murchison Drive, and 15% in Lot C off of Sequoia Avenue. The remaining 50% of project trips are expected to park on streets to the north of campus.

Home school trips approach and leave the study area from the north via El Camino Real (30%) and Palm Avenue (10%), and from the west via Millbrae Avenue (20%) and Murchison Drive (20%). Visitor trips may approach from the south via El Camino Real (20%), from the north via El Camino Real (10%) and US 101 (10%), or from the west via Millbrae Avenue (20%). Figure 4.5-10 shows the project turning movement volumes for the Mills High School study area.

San Mateo High School. Figure 4.5-11 the assumed distribution of inbound trips for the San Mateo High School study area. Figure 4.5-12 shows the trip distribution for outbound trips. Based on observed parking utilization, approximately 30% of project trips are expected to use parking lots along North Delaware Street and 10% to use the parking lot off East Poplar Avenue. Thirty percent of project trips are expected to use on-street parking in the neighborhood to the southwest of the school campus, 15% to park in the neighborhood to the northeast and 15% to park to the southeast.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-22 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

40% Home

Street Parking 20% 20% Visitor

Lot

20% Parking

Parking40% Lot Street Parking 20%

LEGEND Figure - On Street Parking - Routes (Visitor Team) Capuchino High School Study Area - Global Routes (Home Team) - On Site Parking Lot NO SCALE Project Trip & Parking Distribution (Inbound andNot Outbound) to Scale /

Source: DKS, 2016 Capuchino High School Study Area Figure 4.5-7 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-23 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

1. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

129 (10)

0(0) 10 (129) 5 (64)

0(0) 64 (5)

2. Cunningham Way/Driveway & Crystal Springs Rd

2 (10)129

0(0) 10 (129) 0(0) 0(0)

0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

3. El Camino Real & San Felipe Ave

0(0) 0(0)

193 (16) 0(0) 0(0)

0(0)

0(0) 16 (193) 0(0)

0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

4. El Camino Real & Santa Inez Ave/Park Pl 5. El Camino Real & Park Blvd/San Diego Ave 6. Magnolia Ave/Park Pl & Park Blvd 7. Santa Florita Ave & Park Blvd/Driveway

0(0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 161 (13) 32 (3) 0(0)

161 (13) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0(0)

0(0) 32 (3) 0(0) 2(3) 32

32 (3) 0(0) 0(0)

0(0) 0(0) 13 (161) 13 (161)

0 (0)

32 (3) 3 (32) (32) 3

0(0) 3 (32) 3

0(0) 32 (3) 0(0) 3(32) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 3(32) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (32)

8. El Camino Real & Millwood Dr 9. Magnolia Ave & Millwood Dr

0(0) 3 (32) 193 (16) 161 (13) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0)

32 (3) 32 (3)

0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 16 (193) 13 (161)3 (32) 0 (0)

LEGEND Figure 3 - Traffic Signal 19 00 - Study Intersection - Stop Control Not to Scale Capuchino High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Project Volumes

Source: DKS, 2016. Capuchino High School Project Volumes Figure 4.5-8 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-24 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10% Visitor

30% Visitor

20% Visitor

Street Parking 10% 20% Home

Parking15% Lot 20% Visitor

20% Home Parking Lot 15% Parking20% Lot 20% Visitor 20% Home

LEGEND - On Street Parking - Routes (Visitor Team) Mills HighNot School to Scale Study A - Global Routes (Home Team) - On Site Parking Lot NO SCALE Project Trip & Parking Distribution (Inbound and Outbound) /

Source: DKS, 2016 Mills High School Study Area Figure 4.5-9 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-25 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10. El Camino Real & Hillcrest Blvd 11. El Camino Real & Victoria Ave 12. US 101 NB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave 13. US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0 (0) 104 (8) 0 (0) 0(0) 104 (8)0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 26 (2) 8 (104) 0(0) 0 (0) 8 (104) 0(0) 0 (0) 52 (4)

0(0) 2 (26) 0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

14. Rollins Rd & Millbrae Ave 15. El Camino Real & Millbrae Ave 16. Ashton Ave & Millbrae Ave 17. El Camino Real & Murchinson Dr

0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 6 (78) 26 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 52 (4) 0(0) 0(0) 78 (6) 26 (2) 0(0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0 (0) 2 (26) 26 (2) 0(0) 78 (6) 0(0) 2 (26) 0(0) 0(0) 26 (2) 0(0) 26 (2) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 6 (78) 2 (26) 13 (1) 0(0) 78 (6) 0(0) 2 (26) 6(78) 2 (26) 26 (2) 0 (0) 4 (52) 0 (0) 2 (26) 1 (13)

18. S Magnolia Ave & Murchinson Dr 19.Sequoia Ave & Murchinson Dr 20.El Camino Real & Trousdale Dr 21. Magnolia Ave & Trousdale Dr

0(0) 1 (13) 0(0) 13 (1) 78 (6) 2 (26) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 13 (1) 1 (13) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (39) 2 (26) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 39 (3) 0(0) 0(0)

gg 0 (0) 0(0) 13 (1) 0(0) 13 (1) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 26 (2) 6 (78) 0(0) 0(0) 26 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (13) 0 (0) 1 (13) 0 (0)

LEGEND Figure 213 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Mills High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Project Volumes

Source: DKS, 2016. Mills High School Project Volumes Figure 4.5-10 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-26 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10% Visitor

St re et Parking 15%

Parking Lot 40% Home 30%

20% Visitor

Street Parking Parking10% Lot

30%

15% Street Parking

20% Home

20% Visitor 20% Home

LEGEND Figure - On Street Parking - Routes (Visitor Team) San Mateo High SchoolNot to ScaleStudy Area - Global Routes (Home Team) - On Site Parking Lot NO SCALE / Project Trip & Parking Distribution Inbound Direction

Source: DKS, 2016 San Mateo High School Study Area Figure 4.5-11 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-27 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10% Visitor

Street Parking

15%

Parking Lot

30%

Street Parking 10% Parking Lot

30% 40% Home

20% Visitor

Street Parking15%

20% Visitor

20% Home 20% Visitor 20% Home

LEGEND Figure - On Street Parking - Routes (Visitor Team) San Mateo High SchoolNot to Scale Study Area - Global Routes (Home Team) - On Site Parking Lot NO SCALE Project Trip & Parking Distribution Outbound Direction /

Source: DKS, 2016 San Mateo High School Study Area Figure 4.5-12 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-28 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Of the 80% of project trips from home school attendees, half enter the study area at El Camino Real (20% from the south and 20% from the north). The other half of home school attendees would enter the study from northbound US 101, exiting at Airport Boulevard and continuing on to westbound Peninsula Avenue. The 20% of project trips from the visiting team could enter the study area from northbound El Camino Real at East Poplar Avenue, from eastbound Peninsula Avenue, or from southbound US 101, exiting onto East Poplar Avenue. Visitor trips might also be split between northbound US 101 (10%) and northbound El Camino Real (10%). For outbound trips, 40% would leave the study area via westbound East Poplar Avenue at El Camino Real (20% to the north and 20% to the south). The remaining 40% of outbound project accounted for by home school attendees would leave via eastbound East Poplar Avenue to southbound US 101. The 20% of outbound project trips accounted for by the visiting team could leave the study area via northbound El Camino Real, southbound El Camino Real, southbound US 101, or split between northbound US 101 (10%) and northbound El Camino Real (10%).

Figure 4.5-13 shows the project turning movement volumes for the San Mateo High School study area.

Aragon High School. Figure 4.5-14 illustrates the assumed distribution of trips for the Aragon High School study area. In this case, 50% of the project trips are expected to use the parking lots on the northwest corner of the campus. The other 50% of the trips are expected to use the parking lot adjacent to the tennis courts. Both lots may be accessed via a one-way loop from Alameda de las Pulgas to Woodland Drive.

Of the 80% of project trips attributable to the home school, 15% approach the school via eastbound SR 92 and 30% via westbound SR 92. Another 30% of the home school trips approach the school via Aragon Boulevard from within the neighborhood to the northeast of the school. The remaining 5% approach from the west along Tournament Drive. Visitor trips from the north may approach from eastbound or westbound Crystal Springs Road onto Alameda de las Pulgas or from the south via eastbound SR 92 (5%), westbound SR 92 (10%), or northbound Alameda de las Pulgas (5%).

Figure 4.5-15 shows the project turning movement volumes for the Aragon High School study area.

Hillsdale High School. Figure 4.5-16 illustrates the assumed distribution of trips for the Hillsdale High School study area. For this school, 45% of the project trips are assumed to park in the lot near the southeast corner of campus, off of Alameda de las Pulgas and 15% are assumed to park in the lot along 31st Avenue. The remaining 40% of trips are expected to find on-street parking.

Of the 80% of trips assumed to be generated by the home school, 20% are assumed to approach via southbound El Camino Real to 31st Avenue, 20% approach form the north on Alameda de las Pulgas, 20% approach from the east, heading westbound on Hillsdale Boulevard, 10% are northbound on Alameda de las Pulgas, 5% approach from the west on both West Hillsdale Boulevard and 31st Avenue.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-29 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

22. Airport Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp

0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 5 (67)

0(0)335 (27)

23. Airport Blvd & Peninsula Ave

0(0) 0(0) 335 (27) 0(0)

5(67)0(0)

24. N Humboldt St & Peninsula Ave

0 (0) 167 (13) 0(0) 167 (13) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

0(0) 5 (67) 0(0)

25. Dwight Rd & Peninsula Ave

0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 167 (13) 0(0) 0(0) 5 (67) 0(0) 0(0)

0(0) 0(0)

134 (11)

26. N Amphlett Blvd & E Polar Ave/US 101 27. N Humboldt St & E Poplar Ave 28. N Delaware St & E Poplar Ave 29. N San Mateo Dr & E Poplar Ave

0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 21 (268) 5 (67) 134 (11) 32 (401) 134 (11) 0(0) 21 (268) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 67 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

0(0) 268 (21) 0 (0) 0(0) 67 (5) 32 (401) 0 (0) 0 (0) 401 (32)0 (0) 32 (401)0 (0)

30. El Camino Real & E Poplar Ave

21 (268) 134 (11) 0 (0) 21 (268) 0(0) 0(0) 268 (21) 0(0) gg 0(0)

0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

LEGEND Figure 243 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale San Mateo High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Project Volumes

Source: DKS, 2016. San Mateo High School Project Volumes Figure 4.5-13 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-30 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

20% Visitor

30% Home

Parking Lot 10% Visitor 20% Visitor 50% 30% Home 5% Home 5% Visitor 5% Visitor 15% Home

LEGEND - Routes (Visitor Team) Aragon High Schoo - Global Routes (Home Team) - On Site Parking Lot NO SCALE Project Trip & Parking Distribution (Inbound and Outbou Not to Scale /

Source: DKS, 2016 Aragon High School Study Area Figure 4.5-14 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-31 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

31. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

0(0) 40 (3) 0(0) 0 (0)

0(0) 3 (40)

32. Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Rd

0(0) 40 (3)

3 (40) 3 (40)

0(0) 40 (3)

33. El Cerrito Ave & Crystal Springs Rd

0(0) 3 (40) 0(0) 0(0)

0(0) 40 (3)

34. Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Dr

0(0) 40 (3) 0(0) 60 (5)

3(40) 5 (60)

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp 36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp 37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

80 (6) 0 (0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (80) 0(0) 2 (30) 0 (0) 0(0) 2 (30) 3 (40) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 30 (2) 0 (0) 0(0) 30 (2) 0(0)

0(0) 40 (3) 30 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

LEGEND Figure 263 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Aragon High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Project Volumes

Source: DKS, 2016. Aragon High School Project Volumes Figure 4.5-15 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-32 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

20% Visitor From SR-92

20% Home

arking Street 10%P

10% Visitor

20% Home Street 10%Parking Street 20%Parking

Lot Parking15% 5% Home Parking45% Lot 10% Visitor 5% Home

10% Home

LEGEND - On Street Parking - Routes (Visitor Team) Hillsdale High School Study A - Global Routes (Home Team) - On Site Parking Lot NO SCALE Project Trip & Parking Distribution (InboundNot and to ScaleOutbound) /

Source: DKS, 2016 Hillsdale High School Study Area Figure 4.5-16 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-33 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Visitor trips could approach from the east (10%) along Hillsdale Boulevard and west (10%) along 31st Avenue. Alternatively, the 20% of total trips that are visitor trips could approach from the north along Alameda de las Pulgas.

Figure 4.5-17 shows the project turning movement volumes for the Capuchino High School study area.

b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact T-1 Increases in traffic under Existing plus Project conditions would cause operating conditions to fall below the LOS standard at the intersection of El Camino Real and Millwood Drive and the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue up to 10 times per year. The impacts would be significant and unavoidable at El Camino Real and Millwood Drive and significant but mitigable at North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue.

The combined Existing plus Project turning movement volumes are illustrated in Figure 4.5-18 through Figure 4.5-22. Detailed LOS calculations for the Existing plus Project condition for both time periods may be found in Appendix F for both the 6:00 to 8:00 PM and 8:00 to 10:00 PM time periods.

As shown in Table 4.5-8, the following four intersections would operate worse than LOS D during the 6:00 - 8:00 PM time period under Existing plus Project conditions:

• El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue (Millbrae) • El Camino Real and Millwood Drive (Millbrae) • El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue (San Mateo County CMP/Millbrae) • North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo)

Because the City of Millbrae does not specify a threshold of significance for intersections operating below standard under baseline conditions, further consideration is needed to define whether the proposed project is responsible for an impact at the intersection of El Camino Real and Park Boulevard. This is a stop-controlled intersection that is currently experiencing deficient LOS F under Existing conditions. The addition of project traffic would increase the delay already experienced on the lower-volume minor street approach but would not impact the free flow of traffic on the major street. Because the majority of traffic flowing through the intersection would not experience increased delay, this intersection is not considered impacted.

The intersection of El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue is not considered to be impacted because the average delay would decrease with the addition of project traffic. This can occur when the existing green time is better utilized by the addition of project generated traffic.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-34 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Table 4.5-8 Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM Existing 6:00 -8:00 PM Ex + Proj 6:00 -8:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino High School 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.58 19.2 C 0.60 20.7 Road 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Signalized C 0.45 20.4 C 0.47 20.2 Road 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Signalized B 0.44 11.1 A 0.39 9.9 Avenue 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Signalized B 0.48 15.7 B 0.41 14.2 Avenue 5 El Camino Real & Park 2WSC F N/A >50 F N/A >50 Boulevard/San Diego Avenue 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park AWSC A 0.23 8.8 A 0.22 8.8 Boulevard 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park 1WSC A N/A 9.7 A N/A 9.7 Boulevard 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC D N/A 34.3 F N/A >50 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.14 7.8 A 0.31 8.8 Mills High School 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Signalized B 0.43 13.7 B 0.43 13.5 Boulevard 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized A 0.37 3.5 A 0.39 3.5 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.48 11.6 B 0.50 11.7 Avenue 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.66 12.9 B 0.67 13.0 Avenue 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized D 0.96 41.2 D 0.97 42.2 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized F 1.26 >80 F 1.26 >80 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC B 0.62 12.4 B 0.66 14.1 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized C 0.50 26.6 C 0.51 26.7 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison AWSC B 0.58 12.9 C 0.75 16.7 Drive 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.30 8.4 A 0.31 8.8 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.50 26.1 C 0.51 26.2 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.28 23.2 C 0.29 22.9 San Mateo High School 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Signalized B 0.59 13.0 B 0.70 15.1 ramps 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Signalized B 0.62 17.2 C 0.73 20.4 Avenue 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Signalized C 0.76 34.9 D 0.77 38.3 Avenue 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized A 0.50 8.9 A 0.42 7.9

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-35 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Existing 6:00 -8:00 PM Ex + Proj 6:00 -8:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Poplar 3WSC F 2.75 >50 F 4.57 >50 Avenue 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Signalized B 0.46 12.0 B 0.52 12.1 Avenue 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Signalized C 0.62 26.7 C 0.76 33.9 Avenue 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Signalized B 0.41 17.2 B 0.52 17.5 Avenue 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.55 16.2 C 0.69 20.6 Aragon High School 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.58 13.3 B 0.53 12.5 Road 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal AWSC B 0.53 12.5 B 0.49 11.5 Springs Road 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs AWSC A 0.35 9.3 A 0.32 8.9 Road 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland 1WSC B N/A 11.2 B N/A 11.7 Drive 35(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Signalized C 0.72 22.9 C 0.63 21.3 ramps 36(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Signalized C 0.52 26.1 C 0.45 25.4 ramps 37(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Signalized C 0.36 22.1 C 0.29 21.7 Avenue Hillsdale High School 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized C 0.47 24.4 C 0.49 23.6 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st 39 AWSC C 0.64 17.0 B 0.61 15.0 Avenue 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.20 8.0 A 0.21 8.0 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale 41 Signalized D 0.87 40.5 D 0.85 38.4 Boulevard Alameda de las Pulgas & W 42 AWSC C 0.784 22.3 C 0.61 16.8 Hillsdale Boulevard Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale 43 AWSC B 0.49 11.0 A 0.39 9.5 Boulevard Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th 44 AWSC B 0.37 10.6 A 0.32 9.8 Avenue Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop control (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, 3WSC – three way, AWSC – all way) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2 Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds) Intersections 35-37 were analyzed as part of the Aragon and Hillsdale study areas and the worse LOS reported. Potentially impacted intersections are shaded.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-36 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp

0 (0) 0 (0) 28 (2) 28 (2)

0(0) 2 (28) 0 (0)

36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp

0(0) 56 (4) 2 (28) 2 (28)

0(0)

2 (28)0 (0)

37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

0 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 56 (4) 0 (0)

0(0)

0(0) 4 (56) 0 (0)

0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

38. El Camino Real & 31st Ave

0 (0) 0(0) 4(56) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 56 (4) 0(0) 0 (0)

4 (56) 0 (0) 0 (0)

39. Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Ave 40. Del Monte St & 31st Ave 41. El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Blvd 42.Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Blvd

84 (7) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0(0) 84 (7) 7(84) (28)2 56 (4) 3 (42) 0(0) 0(0) 28 (2) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 28 (2) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0(0)

28 (2) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) (28)2 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 2 (28) 0 (0) 4 (56) 42 (3) 0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (84)0 (0)

43.Del Monte St & W Hillsdale Blvd 44. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Ave

0(0) 0(0) 1(14) 0(0) (28)2 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

0(0) 0(0)

gg 0(0) 28 (2) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 14 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

LEGEND Figure 283 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Hillsdale High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Project Volumes

Source: DKS, 2016. Hillsdale High School Project Volumes Figure 4.5-17 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-37 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

1. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

1,377 (644)

128 (72)

1,277 (946) 214 (190)

141 (118) 291 (124)

2. Cunningham Way/Driveway & Crystal Springs Rd

6 (190)460

3(50)83

233 (283) 62 (32) 6(1)

1 (0) 27 (25) 0 (0) 4 (1) 24 (21) 0 (1)

3. El Camino Real & San Felipe Ave

34 (35) 9(3) 1,523 (732) 92 (65) 38 (15)

52 (24)

46 (21) 1,464 (1,065) 37 (42)

31 (21) 8(9)

37 (12)

4. El Camino Real & Santa Inez Ave/Park Pl 5. El Camino Real & Park Blvd/San Diego Ave 6. Magnolia Ave/Park Pl & Park Blvd 7. Santa Florita Ave & Park Blvd/Driveway

29 (20) 54 (29) 1,294 (602) 38 (14) 41 (26) 20 (9) 1,287 (575) 11 (11) 42 (22)

125 (72) 79 (32) 1(0) 99 (50) 0(0)

6 (3) 23 (7) 48 (18)

149 (52) 84 (51) 86 (40) 14 (6) (13) 24

3(3) 33 2(0)

68 (38) 12 (4) 1,355 (968) 1,382 (968)

49 (26) 110 (64) 3 (33) 3

0(0) 35 (46) (32) 3 69 (58) 33 (4)

14 (5) 11 (8) 56 (36) 13 (8) 53 (25) 80 (33) 0(1) 114 (98) 0 (1) 19 (4) 39 (38) 94 (77)

8. El Camino Real & Millwood Dr 9. Magnolia Ave & Millwood Dr

1,154 (645) 10 (5)

51 (34) 230 (34) 185 (25) 9(5) 55 (9) 1(2)

1,381 (838) 99 (45)

8(1) 83 (36) 8(0) 27 (20) 64 (213) 27 (172) 43 (55) 8 (2)

LEGEND Figure 3 - Traffic Signal 29 00 - Study Intersection - Stop Control Not to Scale Capuchino High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Existing Plus Project Volumes Capuchino High School Existing Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-18 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-38 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10. El Camino Real & Hillcrest Blvd 11. El Camino Real & Victoria Ave 12. US 101 NB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave 13. US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave

30 (20) 18 (12) 371 (187) 53 (29) 1,441 (801) 1,100 (691)454 (276) 116 (83) 1,174 (611) 47 (31) 1,052 (650) 47 (34) 58 (47) 75 (43) 1,441 (908) 102 (73) 1,742 (1,081) 114 (105) 132 (78) 792 (547)

661 (341) 992 (832) 125 (81) 32 (11) 80 (87)

14. Rollins Rd & Millbrae Ave 15. El Camino Real & Millbrae Ave 16. Ashton Ave & Millbrae Ave 17. El Camino Real & Murchinson Dr

42 (24) 941 (600) 53 (24) 90 (35) 624 (520) 10 (3) 120 (76) 213 (125) 164 (149) 187 (109) 413 (175) 730 (350) 558 (250) 73 (27) 1,542 (876) 904 (431) 52 (17) 604 (270) 114 (55) 256 (90) 230 (63) 364 (295) 85 (31) 18 (6)

350 (331) 19 (13) 451 (397) 651 (424) 717 (395)

33 (0) 65 (21) 47 (22) 63 (27) 67 (46) 309 (155) 12 (28) 10 (5) 235 (47) 103 (58) 131 (34) 30 (2) 202 (211) 279 (180) 65 (26) 979 (848) 29 (41) 66 (47) 203 (94)

18. S Magnolia Ave & Murchinson Dr 19.Sequoia Ave & Murchinson Dr 20.El Camino Real & Trousdale Dr 21. Magnolia Ave & Trousdale Dr

73 (27) 33 (20) 28 (15) 66 (25) 59 (25) 86 (22) 240 (117) 810 (375)91 (22) 31 (22) 426 (186) 62 (43) 126 (52) 30 (8) 114 (89)

55 (20) 3 (26) 3(0) 166 (83) 119 (37) 67 (39) 60 (26) 10 (6) 9(3)

23 (6) 80 (76) 674 (332) 8(16) 48 (23)

gg 61 (35) 219 (115) 23 (11) 36 (10) 38 (15) 15 (5)

5(4) 50 (19) 32 (2) 53 (37) 117 (146) 98 (33) 161 (99) 7 (17) 105 (55) 2 (1) 355 (151)25 (5) 178 (89)

LEGEND Figure 303 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Mills High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Existing Plus Project Volumes Mills High School Existing Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-19 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-39 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

22. Airport Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp

294 (101)

33 (14) 76 (34) 426 (352)

71 (29)

848 (449)

23. Airport Blvd & Peninsula Ave

7(7) 1,142 (542) 22 (21) 19 (9)

21 (7) 509 (387)

24. N Humboldt St & Peninsula Ave

131 (76) 52 (22) 813 (474) 51 (10) 372 (125) 11 (9)

177 (76) 33 (4) 48 (38)

13 (8)

523 (464) 108 (90)

25. Dwight Rd & Peninsula Ave

20 (22) 24 (14) 499 (338) 78 (32) 231 (59)

19 (2)

147 (134) 69 (21) 110 (71)

16 (6)

395 (335) 261 (85)

26. N Amphlett Blvd & E Polar Ave/US 101 27. N Humboldt St & E Poplar Ave 28. N Delaware St & E Poplar Ave 29. N San Mateo Dr & E Poplar Ave

66 (56) 104 (73) 111 (80) 84 (325) 70 (32) 319 (219) 58 (47) 126 (43) 501 (225) 169 (70) 247 (246) 336 (145)60 (61) 241 (500) 109 (17) 82 (299) 39 (15) 598 (297) 35 (7) 62 (38) 16 (10) 121 (45) 26 (16)

9(2) 25 (7) 5(4) 248 (114) 41 (18) 139 (60) 97 (43) 401 (171) 44 (15) 48 (19) 32 (16) 18 (14) 8(4)

7(8) 48 (26) 360 (72) 32 (21) 215 (582) 259 (143) 58 (18) 36 (17) 580 (114) 338 (637)8 (2) 17 (11)

30. El Camino Real & E Poplar Ave

80 (297) 203 (44) 907 (476) 34 (13) 16 (6) 169 (340)

392 (88) 1,147 (623) gg 46 (22)

18 (8) 25 (8) 48 (22)

LEGEND Figure 313 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale San Mateo High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Existing Plus Project Volumes San Mateo High School Existing Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-20 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-40 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

31. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

1,120 (591)

155 (63) 1,362 (744) 46 (27)

38 (34) 170 (79)

32. Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Rd

107 (49) 196 (44)

237 (112) 114 (94)

164 (23) 143 (46)

33. El Cerrito Ave & Crystal Springs Rd

38 (14) 29 (15) 191 (109)

4(3)

29 (3)

239 (53)

34. Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Dr

283 (108)

61 (7) 422 (173) 95 (14)

16 (59) 30 (117)

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp 36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp 37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

265 (116) 98 (37) 140 (93) 0(1) 135 (201) 2 (0) 358 (172) 253 (154) 514 (261) 491 (244) 5(0) 156 (143) 30 (8) 156 (124) 528 (187) 484 (182) 158 (69) 40 (13) 488 (219) 5(2)

33 (8) 6 (1) 318 (82) 7 (0) 484 (182) 188 (53)

LEGEND Figure 323 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Aragon High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Existing Plus Project Volumes Aragon High School Existing Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-21 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-41 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp

185 (110) 0 (1) 386 (174) 281 (156) 153 (103)

530 (215) 158 (69)

36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp

129 (121) 545 (218)

158 (152) 456 (208)

278 (79) 456 (208) 188 (53)

37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

98 (37) 140 (93) 568 (235) 2 (0) 30 (8)

5(0)

40 (13) 462 (273) 5 (2)

33 (8) 6 (1) 7 (0)

38. El Camino Real & 31st Ave

182 (162) 7(4) 305 (314) 962 (604)87 (85) 351 (165) 107 (54) 1,194 (582) 173 (69)

7 (4) 305 (314)

182 (162)

39. Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Ave 40. Del Monte St & 31st Ave 41. El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Blvd 42.Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Blvd

61 (132) 147 (36) 54 (30) 1(3) 288 (166) 269 (167) 321 (145) 910 (621) 186 (107) 59 (16) 223 (72) 109 (114) 349 (315) 30 (18) 76 (22) 303 (235) 93 (60) 46 (28) 3(0) 0(0) 23 (21) 105 (97) 0 (0) 277 (212) 86 (64) 29 (9) 161 (64) 90 (42)

26 (9) 33 (8) 331 (78) 349 (115) 57 (15) 4(1) 49 (15) 7(4) 24 (5) 29 (53) 1(2) 203 (75) 117 (146) 175 (36) 57 (22) 28 (34) 10 (0) 114 (83) 474 (531) 145 (110)

43.Del Monte St & W Hillsdale Blvd 44. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Ave

45 (14) 20 (11) 353 (207) 24 (11) 18 (8) 246 (143) 11 (4)

1(0) 11 (4) 6 (2) 0(1) 21 (5)

1(0)

gg 10 (2) 0(0) 15 (5) 425 (99) 2(0) 8(6) 4 (17) 6 (5) 313 (102) 3 (1) 4 (6)

LEGEND Figure 333 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Hillsdale High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Existing Plus Project Volumes Hillsdale High School Existing Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-22 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-42 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

The intersection of El Camino Real & Millwood Drive has a potentially significant impact, because the addition of project trips causes the operating conditions to decrease from acceptable LOS D conditions to unacceptable LOS F conditions. Although this impact would occur fewer than 10 times per year, the traffic thresholds for the City of Millbrae do not account for the frequency of the impact. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, even an infrequent traffic impact that exceeds the LOS standards would be considered a significant impact.

While the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar Avenue currently operates at a deficient LOS F under Existing conditions, the addition of project trips would result in an increase of more than four seconds average delay, resulting in a potentially significant impact. The same as for the impact at El Camino Real and Millwood Drive, the impact at North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue would occur fewer than 10 times per year. However, the traffic thresholds for the City of San Mateo do not account for the frequency of the impact. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, even an infrequent traffic impact that exceeds the LOS standards would be considered a significant impact.

As shown in Table 4.5-9, two intersections would operate worse than LOS D during the 8:00 to10:00 PM time period under Existing plus Project conditions:

• El Camino Real & Millwood Drive (City of Millbrae) • North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar Avenue (City of San Mateo)

Both intersections have a potentially significant impact because the addition of project trips would cause the operating conditions to be reduced from an acceptable LOS to unacceptable LOS F.

Table 4.5-9 Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM Existing 8:00-10:00 Ex + Proj 8:00-10:00 # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino High School 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.31 14.5 B 0.34 15.0 Road 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.28 18.7 B 0.31 18.3 Road 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Signalized B 0.27 11.4 B 0.30 10.8 Avenue 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Signalized B 0.29 12.1 B 0.32 12.0 Avenue 5 El Camino Real & Park 2WSC C N/A 16.0 C N/A 16.9 Boulevard/San Diego Avenue 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park AWSC A 0.12 7.7 A 0.16 7.8 Boulevard 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park 1WSC A N/A 9.2 A N/A 9.4 Boulevard 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC B N/A 14.6 F N/A >50 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.07 7.4 A 0.28 8.3

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-43 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Existing 8:00-10:00 Ex + Proj 8:00-10:00 # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Mills High School 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Signalized B 0.26 15.6 B 0.28 14.9 Boulevard 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized A 0.22 3.2 A 0.22 3.1 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.31 10.3 B 0.32 10.3 Avenue 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.43 11.0 B 0.44 11.0 Avenue 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized C 0.56 30.3 C 0.57 30.1 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized D 0.87 39.4 D 0.91 41.2 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC A 0.24 8.2 A 0.38 9.2 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized C 0.22 28.8 C 0.32 29.2 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison AWSC A 0.22 8.2 A 0.26 8.7 Drive 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.12 7.4 A 0.17 7.5 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.24 24.7 C 0.25 24.7 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.15 22.5 C 0.16 21.6 San Mateo High School 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Signalized A 0.20 8.1 A 0.19 7.9 ramps 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Signalized B 0.38 14.5 B 0.35 13.9 Avenue 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Signalized B 0.45 16.4 B 0.41 15.9 Avenue 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized A 0.32 6.6 A 0.31 7.7 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Poplar 3WSC C 0.96 17.4 F N/A >80 Avenue 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Signalized A 0.25 9.6 A 0.44 7.6 Avenue 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Signalized C 0.31 22.6 C 0.54 25.5 Avenue 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Signalized B 0.19 15.5 B 0.42 15.0 Avenue 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.34 11.2 B 0.49 15.4 Aragon High School 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized A 0.32 6.6 A 0.30 7.6 Road 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal AWSC A 0.14 8.0 A 0.14 8.2 Springs Road 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs AWSC A 0.10 7.3 A 0.14 7.5 Road 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland 1WSC A N/A 9.4 A N/A 9.5 Drive 35(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Signalized B 0.33 18.6 B 0.31 18.4 ramps 36(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Signalized C 0.22 21.6 C 0.22 20.6 ramps

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-44 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Existing 8:00-10:00 Ex + Proj 8:00-10:00 # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 37(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Signalized C 0.16 20.5 C 0.14 20.2 Avenue Hillsdale High School 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized C 0.29 24.7 C 0.28 24.5 39 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st AWSC A 0.30 9.7 A 0.33 9.4 Avenue 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.14 7.5 A 0.15 7.6 41 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Signalized C 0.72 34.0 C 0.70 33.6 Boulevard 42 Alameda de las Pulgas & W AWSC A 0.30 9.5 A 0.29 9.9 Hillsdale Boulevard 43 Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale AWSC A 0.19 7.8 A 0.18 7.7 Boulevard 44 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th AWSC A 0.14 8.0 A 0.15 8.0 Avenue Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop controlled (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, 3WSC – three way , AWSC – all way stop controlled) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2. Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds) Intersections 35-37 were analyzed as part of the Aragon and Hillsdale study areas and the worse LOS reported. Potentially impacted intersections are shaded.

Mitigation Measures. The following measures would reduce the project’s traffic impacts under existing plus project traffic conditions to a less than significant level.

T-1(a) The District shall work with the City of Millbrae to mitigate the potential impact to the intersection of El Camino Real & Millwood Drive under the Existing plus Project conditions by making the stop- controlled minor street approach along Millwood Drive right-turn- only. This would shift eastbound left-turning traffic further north to the signalized intersection of El Camino Real and Park Place. The District and the City of Millbrae shall negotiate a fair-share cost distribution for this traffic improvement.

T-1(b) The District shall work with the City of San Mateo to mitigate the potential impact to the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar Avenue under the Existing plus Project conditions by making the stop-controlled minor street approach along North Amphlett Boulevard right-turn-only. This would shift northbound and southbound through and left-turning traffic further west to the signalized intersection of North Humboldt Street and East Poplar Avenue. The District shall confirm that the City of San Mateo has implemented its planned Congestion Management Program at the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar prior to operation of the proposed stadium lights.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-45 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation T-1(a) would cause the intersection of El Camino Real & Millwood Drive to operate at LOS B for both time periods and would result in a less than significant impact. With implementation of this measure, there would not be an appreciable increase to the average delay at the intersection of El Camino Real and Park Place and it would continue to operate at LOS B. Because implementation of this mitigation is under the jurisdiction of the City of Millbrae, implementation is not certain. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation T-1(b) would cause the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard & East Poplar Avenue to operate at LOS B for both time periods and would result in a less than significant impact. With implementation of this measure, there would not be an appreciable increase to the average delay at the intersection of North Humboldt Street and East Poplar Avenue and it would continue to operate at LOS B. The City of San Mateo has programmed a traffic calming project that will implement this mitigation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant after mitigation.

c. Background Conditions Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact T-2 Increases in traffic under Background plus Project conditions would cause intersection operations to fall below the LOS standard at El Camino Real and Millwood Drive up to 10 times per year. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Background traffic volumes were derived from the Existing Conditions with the addition of traffic from approved projects within the study area. These projects include developments that are planned (i.e., applied for a development permit) or approved. A listing of approved projects that produce trips within the study area may be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix F). Traffic from these developments was added to the study intersections and roadway segments to develop the Background conditions. This scenario also assumes implementation of a traffic calming project that will restrict the minor approaches to right-turn- only at the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue.

Under Background conditions, all but two of the study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the 6:00 to 8:00 PM period. As shown in Table 4.5-10, the following intersections would operate at LOS F during the 6:00 to 8:00 PM period under Background conditions:

• El Camino Real and Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue (City of Millbrae)

All intersections would meet the LOS standard of D or better during the 8:00 to10:00 PM time period under Background conditions.

Background plus Project traffic volumes were based on the Background conditions with the addition of traffic from the SMUHSD Stadium Lighting Project. Background plus Project conditions intersection turning movement volumes are illustrated in Figure 4.5-23 through Figure 4.5-27. Detailed LOS calculations for the Background plus Project condition may be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix F) for both the 6:00 to 8:00 PM and 8:00 to 10:00 PM time periods.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-46 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Table 4.5-10 Background Plus Project Intersection LOS 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM Background Back + Proj 6:00-8:00 PM 6:00-8:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.54 18.8 C 0.60 20.7 Road 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.38 19.7 C 0.47 20.2 Road 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Signalized B 0.41 11.1 A 0.39 9.9 Avenue 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Signalized B 0.45 15.6 B 0.41 14.2 Avenue 5 El Camino Real & Park 2WSC F N/A >50 F N/A >50 Boulevard/San Diego Avenue 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park AWSC A 0.21 8.5 A 0.22 8.8 Boulevard 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park 1WSC A N/A 9.4 A N/A 9.7 Boulevard 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC D N/A 28.3 F N/A >50 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.13 7.7 A 0.31 8.8 Mills 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Signalized B 0.43 13.7 B 0.43 13.5 Boulevard 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized A 0.37 3.5 A 0.39 3.5 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.48 11.6 B 0.50 11.7 Avenue 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.66 12.9 B 0.67 13.0 Avenue 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized D 0.96 41.2 D 0.97 42.2 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized F 1.26 >80 F 1.26 >80 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC B 0.62 12.4 B 0.66 14.1 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized C 0.50 26.6 C 0.51 26.7 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison AWSC B 0.58 12.9 C 0.75 16.7 Drive 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.30 8.4 A 0.31 8.8 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.50 26.1 C 0.51 26.2 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.28 23.2 C 0.29 22.9 San Mateo 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Signalized B 0.38 12.1 B 0.74 16.0 ramps 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Signalized B 0.56 16.2 C 0.77 23.0 Avenue 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Signalized C 0.67 25.5 D 0.77 41.1 Avenue 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized A 0.42 8.6 A 0.42 7.9 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Polar 3WSC B 0.76 7.6 B 0.95 9.2 Avenue

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-47 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Background Back + Proj 6:00-8:00 PM 6:00-8:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Signalized B 0.56 13.7 B 0.65 14.9 Avenue 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Signalized C 0.56 25.5 C 0.76 33.9 Avenue 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Signalized B 0.35 16.6 B 0.52 17.5 Avenue 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.51 15.9 C 0.69 20.6 Aragon 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.52 12.4 B 0.53 12.5 Road 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal AWSC B 0.42 10.8 B 0.49 11.5 Springs Road 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs AWSC A 0.27 8.6 A 0.32 8.9 Road 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland 1WSC B N/A 10.7 B N/A 11.7 Drive 35(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Signalized C 0.58 20.5 C 0.63 21.3 ramps 36(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Signalized C 0.44 25.2 C 0.45 25.4 ramps 37(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Signalized C 0.20 21.8 C 0.29 21.7 Avenue Hillsdale 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized C 0.45 24.4 C 0.49 23.6 39 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st AWSC B 0.49 13.1 B 0.61 15.0 Avenue 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.17 7.8 A 0.21 8.0 41 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Signalized D 0.82 37.1 D 0.85 38.4 Boulevard 42 Alameda de las Pulgas & W AWSC C 0.60 15.9 C 0.61 16.8 Hillsdale Boulevard 43 Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale AWSC A 0.37 9.4 A 0.39 9.5 Boulevard 44 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th AWSC A 0.30 9.7 A 0.32 9.8 Avenue Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop control (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, 3WSC – three way, AWSC – all way) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2 Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds) Intersections 35-37 were analyzed as part of the Aragon and Hillsdale study areas and the worse LOS reported. Potentially impacted intersections are shaded.

As shown in Table 4.5-10, the following intersections would operate worse than LOS D during the 6:00 to 8:00 PM time period under Background plus Project conditions:

• El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millwood Drive (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millbrae Ave (City of Millbrae)

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-48 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

1. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

1,377 (644)

128 (72)

1,277 (946) 214 (190)

141 (118) 291 (124)

2. Cunningham Way/Driveway & Crystal Springs Rd

6 (190)460

3(50)83 233 (283) 62 (32) 6(1)

0 (0) 1 (0) 27 (25) 4 (1) 24 (21) 0 (1)

3. El Camino Real & San Felipe Ave

34 (35) 1,523 (732) 9(3) 92 (65) 38 (15)

52 (24)

46 (21) 1,464 (1,065) 37 (42)

31 (21) 8(9)

37 (12)

4. El Camino Real & Santa Inez Ave/Park Pl 5. El Camino Real & Park Blvd/San Diego Ave 6. Magnolia Ave/Park Pl & Park Blvd 7. Santa Florita Ave & Park Blvd/Driveway

29 (20) 54 (29) 38 (14) 41 (26) 11 (11) 1,294 (602) 20 (9) 1,287 (575)125 (72)

79 (32) 42 (22) 1(0) 99 (50) 0(0)

23 (7) 48 (18) 6 (3) 86 (40) (13) 24

149 (52) 84 (51) 14 (6) 3(3) 33 2(0)

68 (38) 12 (4) 1,355 (968) 1,382 (968)

49 (26) 110 (64)

35 (46) (33) 3

0(0) 3 (32) 3 69 (58) 33 (4)

14 (5) 11 (8) 56 (36) 13 (8) 80 (33) 0(1) 114 (98) 0 (1) 53 (25) 19 (4) 39 (38) 94 (77)

8. El Camino Real & Millwood Dr 9. Magnolia Ave & Millwood Dr

1,154 (645) 10 (5)

51 (34) 230 (34) 185 (25) 9(5) 55 (9) 1(2)

1,382 (839) 99 (45)

8(1) 83 (36) 8(0) 27 (20) 64 (213) 27 (172) 43 (55) 8 (2)

LEGEND Figure 3 - Traffic Signal 39 00 - Study Intersection - Stop Control Not to Scale Capuchino High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Background Plus Project Volumes Capuchino High School Background Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-23 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-49 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10. El Camino Real & Hillcrest Blvd 11. El Camino Real & Victoria Ave 12. US 101 NB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave 13. US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave

30 (20) 18 (12) 53 (29) 371 (187) 1,100 (691)454 (276) 116 (83) 1,174 (611) 1,441 (801) 47 (31) 1,052 (650) 47 (34) 58 (47) 75 (43) 1,441 (908) 102 (73) 1,742 (1,081) 114 (105) 132 (78) 792 (547)

661 (341) 992 (832) 125 (81)32 (11) 80 (87)

14. Rollins Rd & Millbrae Ave 15. El Camino Real & Millbrae Ave 16. Ashton Ave & Millbrae Ave 17. El Camino Real & Murchinson Dr

42 (24) 941 (600) 53 (24) 90 (35) 624 (520) 187 (109) 120 (76) 413 (175) 213 (125) 10 (3) 164 (149) 730 (350) 558 (250) 904 (431) 73 (27) 1,542 (876) 604 (270) 114 (55) 52 (17) 256 (90) 18 (6) 230 (63) 364 (295) 85 (31)

350 (331) 19 (13) 451 (397) 651 (424) 717 (395) 33 (0) 65 (21) 47 (22) 63 (27) 67 (46) 309 (155) 12 (28) 10 (5) 235 (47) 103 (58) 131 (34) 30 (2) 202 (211) 279 (180) 65 (26) 979 (848) 29 (41) 66 (47) 203 (94)

18. S Magnolia Ave & Murchinson Dr 19.Sequoia Ave & Murchinson Dr 20.El Camino Real & Trousdale Dr 21. Magnolia Ave & Trousdale Dr

73 (27) 33 (20) 28 (15) 66 (25) 59 (25) 240 (117) 86 (22) 810 (375)91 (22) 126 (52) 31 (22) 426 (186) 62 (43) 114 (89) 55 (20) 30 (8) 166 (83) 10 (6) 119 (37) 67 (39) 3 (26) 3(0) 60 (26) 9(3)

23 (6) 80 (76) 674 (332) 8 (16) 48 (23)

gg 61 (35) 219 (115) 23 (11) 38 (15) 36 (10) 15 (5) 5(4) 50 (19) 32 (2) 53 (37) 117 (146) 98 (33) 161 (99) 7 (17) 105 (55) 2 (1) 355 (151)25 (5) 178 (89)

LEGEND Figure 403 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Mills High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Background Plus Project Volumes Mills High School Background Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-24 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-50 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

22. Airport Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp

366 (172)

92 (72) 86 (44) 428 (354)

84 (42) 851 (452)

23. Airport Blvd & Peninsula Ave

7(7) 19 (9) 22 (21) 1,214 (614)

21 (7) 521 (399)

24. N Humboldt St & Peninsula Ave

131 (76) 52 (22) 813 (474) 51 (10) 444 (196)

11 (9)

187 (86) 33 (4) 48 (38)

13 (8)

526 (467) 109 (91)

25. Dwight Rd & Peninsula Ave

20 (22) 24 (14) 499 (338) 78 (32) 231 (59)

19 (2)

147 (134) 69 (21) 110 (71)

16 (6)

400 (340) 262 (86)

26. N Amphlett Blvd & E Polar Ave/US 101 27. N Humboldt St & E Poplar Ave 28. N Delaware St & E Poplar Ave 29. N San Mateo Dr & E Poplar Ave

76 (66) 104 (73) 430 (398) 85 (326) 70 (32) 58 (47) 493 (221) 319 (219) 169 (70) 336 (145)60 (61) 241 (500) 142 (53) 39 (15) 608 (307) 109 (17) 35 (7) 82 (299) 62 (38) 26 (16) 9(2) 121 (45) 5(4) 25 (7) 171 (76) 248 (114) 41 (18) 52 (19) 48 (19) 401 (171) 18 (14) 97 (43)

56 (35) 360 (72) 32 (21) 659 (957)8 (2) 259 (143) 208 (574) 36 (17) 580 (114) 58 (18) 17 (11)

30. El Camino Real & E Poplar Ave

80 (297) 203 (44) 907 (476) 34 (13) 169 (340) 16 (6)

392 (88) 1,147 (623) 46 (22)

18 (8) 25 (8) 48 (22)

LEGEND Figure 413 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale San Mateo High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE Background Plus Project Volumes P:\P\15\15209 000 SMUHSD Stadium Lighting EIR\06 Graphics\Corel / San Mateo High School Background Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-25 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-51 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

31. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

1,121 (592)

155 (63) 1,363 (745) 46 (27)

38 (34) 170 (79)

32. Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Rd

107 (49) 196 (44)

237 (112) 114 (94)

164 (23) 143 (46)

33. El Cerrito Ave & Crystal Springs Rd

38 (14) 29 (15) 191 (109)

4(3)

29 (3)

239 (53)

34. Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Dr

283 (108)

61 (7) 422 (173) 95 (14)

16 (59) 30 (117)

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp 36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp 37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

265 (116) 98 (37) 0(1) 135 (201) 140 (93) 358 (172) 253 (154) 514 (261) 2 (0) 491 (244) 156 (143) 30 (8)

156 (124) 5(0) 528 (187) 484 (182) 158 (69) 40 (13) 488 (219) 5(2)

33 (8) 318 (82) 6 (1) 7 (0) 484 (182) 188 (53)

LEGEND Figure 423 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Aragon High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Background Plus Project Volumes Aragon High School Background Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-26 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-52 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp

265 (116) 0 (1) 386 (174) 253 (154) 153 (103)

530 (215) 158 (69)

36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp

129 (121) 545 (218)

158 (152) 456 (208)

278 (79)

456 (208)188 (53)

37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

140 (93) 98 (37) 568 (235) 2 (0) 30 (8)

5(0)

40 (13) 462 (273) 5 (2)

33 (8) 6 (1) 7 (0)

38. El Camino Real & 31st Ave

182 (162) 7(4) 305 (314) 962 (604)87 (85) 351 (165) 107 (54) 1,194 (582) 173 (69)

305 (314) 7 (4) 182 (162)

39. Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Ave 40. Del Monte St & 31st Ave 41. El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Blvd 42.Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Blvd

147 (36) 269 (167) 54 (30) 1(3) 288 (166) 61 (132) 321 (145) 910 (621) 186 (107) 30 (18) 59 (16) 109 (114) 223 (72) 349 (315) 303 (235) 93 (60) 76 (22) 3(0) 46 (28) 0(0) 23 (21) 0 (0) 105 (97) 277 (212) 86 (64) 29 (9)

161 (64) 90 (42)

33 (8) 331 (78) 26 (9) 57 (15) 4(1) 349 (115) 7(4) 49 (15) 24 (5) 29 (53) 1(2) 203 (75) 117 (146) 175 (36) 114 (83) 57 (22) 10 (0) 28 (34) 474 (531) 145 (110)

43.Del Monte St & W Hillsdale Blvd 44. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Ave

45 (14) 20 (11) 246 (143) 353 (207) 18 (8) 24 (11) 11 (4)

1(0) 0(1) 6 (2) 11 (4) 21 (5)

1(0)

gg 10 (2) 0(0) 2(0) 425 (99) 15 (5) 8(6) 4 (17) 313 (102) 6 (5) 3 (1) 4 (6)

LEGEND Figure 433 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Hillsdale High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Background Plus Project Volumes Hillsdale High School Background Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-27 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-53 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

The intersection of El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue would operate at unacceptable LOS F conditions under Background conditions and would continue to do so under Background plus Project conditions.

The proposed project would have a significant impact on the operation of the intersection of El Camino Real and Millwood Drive under Existing plus Project conditions and thus the proposed project would similarly have a significant impact under Background plus Project conditions.

The intersection of El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue would not be significantly impacted because the average delay would decrease with the addition of project traffic. This can occur when the existing green time is better utilized by the addition of project generated traffic.

As shown in Table 4.5-11, the following intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the 8:00 to 10:00 PM time period under Background plus Project conditions:

• El Camino Real & Millwood Drive (City of Millbrae)

This intersection has a potentially significant impact because the addition of project trips would cause the operating conditions to be reduced from an acceptable LOS B to an unacceptable LOS F. Although this impact would occur fewer than 10 times per year, the traffic thresholds for the City of Millbrae do not account for the frequency of the impact. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, even an infrequent traffic impact that exceeds the LOS standards would be considered a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1(a) would reduce the project’s traffic impacts under background plus project traffic conditions at El Camino Real & Millwood Drive to a less than significant level.

Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of this mitigation would cause the intersection of El Camino Real & Millwood Drive to operate at LOS B for both time periods and would result in a less than significant impact. Because implementation of this mitigation is under the jurisdiction of the City of Millbrae implementation is not certain. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-54 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Table 4.5-11 Background Plus Project Intersection LOS 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.30 14.4 B 0.34 15.0 Road 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.23 18.2 B 0.31 18.3 Road 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Signalized B 0.26 11.3 B 0.30 10.8 Avenue 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Signalized B 0.27 11.9 B 0.32 12.0 Avenue 5 El Camino Real & Park 2WSC B N/A 14.3 C N/A 16.9 Boulevard/San Diego Avenue 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park AWSC A 0.09 7.5 A 0.16 7.8 Boulevard 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park 1WSC A N/A 9.1 A N/A 9.4 Boulevard 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC B N/A 13.5 F N/A >50 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.05 7.2 A 0.28 8.3 Mills 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Signalized B 0.26 15.6 B 0.28 14.9 Boulevard 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized A 0.22 3.2 A 0.22 3.1 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.31 10.3 B 0.32 10.3 Avenue 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.43 11.0 B 0.44 11.0 Avenue 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized C 0.56 30.3 C 0.57 30.1 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized D 0.87 39.4 D 0.91 41.2 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC A 0.24 8.2 A 0.38 9.2 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized C 0.22 28.8 C 0.32 29.2 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison AWSC A 0.22 8.2 A 0.26 8.7 Drive 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.12 7.4 A 0.17 7.5 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.24 24.7 C 0.25 24.7 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive Signalized C 0.15 22.5 C 0.16 21.6 San Mateo 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Signalized B 0.22 10.3 A 0.25 9.9 ramps 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Signalized B 0.38 14.5 B 0.40 14.4 Avenue 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Signalized B 0.41 16.3 B 0.42 16.5 Avenue 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized A 0.27 6.4 A 0.31 7.7 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Polar 3WSC A 0.5 4.9 C 0.82 16.2 Avenue

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-55 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Signalized B 0.43 12.7 B 0.64 14.1 Avenue 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Signalized C 0.30 22.5 C 0.54 25.5 Avenue 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Signalized B 0.17 15.3 B 0.42 15.0 Avenue 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized B 0.30 10.9 B 0.49 15.4 Aragon 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized A 0.27 6.4 A 0.30 7.6 Road 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal AWSC A 0.12 7.9 A 0.14 8.2 Springs Road 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs AWSC A 0.09 7.3 A 0.14 7.5 Road 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland 1WSC A N/A 9.1 A N/A 9.5 Drive 35(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Signalized B 0.29 18.3 B 0.31 18.4 ramps 36(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Signalized C 0.19 21.4 C 0.22 20.6 ramps 37(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Signalized C 0.14 20.3 C 0.14 20.2 Avenue Hillsdale 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized C 0.26 24.5 C 0.28 24.5 39 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st AWSC A 0.20 8.7 A 0.33 9.4 Avenue 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.11 7.3 A 0.15 7.6 41 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Signalized C 0.67 32.9 C 0.70 33.6 Boulevard 42 Alameda de las Pulgas & W AWSC A 0.27 9.1 A 0.29 9.9 Hillsdale Boulevard 43 Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale AWSC A 0.16 7.7 A 0.18 7.7 Boulevard 44 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th AWSC A 0.13 7.9 A 0.15 8.0 Avenue Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop control (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, 3WSC – three way, AWSC – all way) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2 Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds) Intersections 35-37 were analyzed as part of the Aragon and Hillsdale study areas and the worse LOS reported. Potentially impacted intersections are shaded.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-56 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

d. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigations

Impact T-3 Increases in traffic under Cumulative plus Project conditions would cause the intersection of El Camino Real and Millwood Drive to fall to an unacceptable level of service, and would add more than four seconds of average delay to already deficient intersection operations at North Delaware Street/East Poplar Avenue and El Camino Real/West Hillsdale Boulevard. These impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative or future year traffic conditions were estimated using outputs from the regional travel demand model for the horizon year of 2035 as described in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix F). This scenario also assumes implementation of a traffic calming project that will restrict the minor approaches to right-turn-only at the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue. As shown in Table 4.5-12, the following intersections are projected to operate below the local LOS standard during the 6:00 to 8:00 PM time period under Cumulative conditions:

• El Camino Real & Park Boulevard (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millwood Drive (City of Millbrae) • Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Murchison Drive (City of Burlingame) • Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Ramps (City of San Mateo) • North Delaware Street & East Poplar Avenue (City of San Mateo) • El Camino Real & East Poplar Avenue (City of San Mateo) • El Camino Real & West Hillsdale Boulevard (City of San Mateo)

Table 4.5-12 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized C 0.78 23.0 C 0.85 26.0 Road 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Signalized C 0.51 20.5 C 0.60 22.0 Road 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Signalized A 0.52 9.5 A 0.56 9.6 Avenue 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Signalized B 0.59 12.3 B 0.63 12.1 Avenue 5 El Camino Real & Park 2WSC F N/A 9766.8 F N/A 17511. Boulevard/San Diego Avenue 2 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park AWSC A 0.31 9.3 A 0.33 9.7 Boulevard 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park 1WSC A N/A 9.4 A N/A 9.8 Boulevard 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC F N/A 500.2 F N/A 1857.7

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-57 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.15 7.8 A 0.32 8.9 Mills 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Signalized B 0.64 16.2 B 0.66 16.1 Boulevard 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized C 0.97 20.5 C 0.99 22.7 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.54 11.8 B 0.56 12.1 Avenue 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.70 13.2 B 0.71 13.4 Avenue 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized F 1.29 113.0 F 1.29 116.0 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized F 1.42 126.0 F 1.42 126.8 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC B 0.39 10.3 B 0.52 12.0 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized F 1.11 96.1 F 1.12 96.3 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison AWSC B 0.48 10.7 B 0.63 13.0 Drive 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC B 0.56 11.2 B 0.59 11.9 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized A 0.49 9.3 B 0.49 16.7 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive Signalized B 0.59 10.5 B 0.59 10.6 San Mateo 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Signalized F 0.77 147.3 F 1.00 376.0 ramps 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Signalized B 0.53 15.7 C 0.74 21.0 Avenue 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Signalized C 0.73 26.2 D 0.84 42.9 Avenue 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized B 0.48 10.7 B 0.49 10.4 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Polar 3WSC B 0.97 6.3 B 1.14 8.2 Avenue 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Signalized B 0.53 13.8 B 0.55 14.2 Avenue 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Signalized E 0.98 64.9 F 1.18 112.5 Avenue 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Signalized C 0.90 27.4 E 1.13 66.8 Avenue 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized F 1.79 290.3 F 1.79 292.9 Aragon 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.60 12.6 B 0.61 12.7 Road 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal AWSC B 0.64 13.9 C 0.71 15.5 Springs Road 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs AWSC A 0.35 9.3 A 0.38 9.6 Road 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland 1WSC C N/A 17.7 C N/A 21.2 Drive 35(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Signalized C 0.79 24.5 C 0.85 27.3 ramps

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-58 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 36(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Signalized C 0.54 26.1 C 0.56 26.6 ramps 37(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Signalized B 0.29 18.0 B 0.30 17.8 Avenue Hillsdale 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized B 0.52 12.3 B 0.53 12.3 39 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st AWSC C 0.70 18.4 C 0.82 23.0 Avenue 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.17 7.8 A 0.22 8.0 41 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Signalized E 1.10 76.6 F 1.12 83.3 Boulevard 42 Alameda de las Pulgas & W AWSC C 0.77 22.2 C 0.78 23.6 Hillsdale Boulevard 43 Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale AWSC A 0.38 9.6 A 0.40 9.7 Boulevard 44 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th AWSC B 0.35 10.2 B 0.37 10.3 Avenue Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop control (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, 3WSC – three way, AWSC – all way) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2 Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds) Intersections 35-37 were analyzed as part of the Aragon and Hillsdale study areas and the worse LOS reported. Potentially impacted intersections are shaded.

As shown in Table 4.5-13, during the 8:00 to 10:00 PM time period, the following intersections are projected to operate below LOS D under Cumulative conditions:

• El Camino Real & Park Boulevard (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue (City of Burlingame) • Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Ramps (City of San Mateo)

Table 4.5-13 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) Capuchino 1 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.43 15.3 B 0.48 16.1 Road 2 Cunningham Way & Crystal Springs Signalized B 0.30 18.4 B 0.39 19.9 Road 3 El Camino Real & San Felipe Signalized B 0.35 10.2 B 0.39 10.1 Avenue 4 El Camino Real & Santa Inez Signalized B 0.36 10.9 B 0.41 11.0 Avenue 5 El Camino Real & Park 2WSC F N/A 75.8 F N/A 103.1 Boulevard/San Diego Avenue

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-59 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 6 Magnolia Avenue/Park Place & Park AWSC A 0.11 7.7 A 0.19 8.0 Boulevard 7 Santa Florita Avenue & Park 1WSC A N/A 9.2 A N/A 9.5 Boulevard 8 El Camino Real & Millwood Drive 1WSC D N/A 25.6 F N/A 572.5 9 Magnolia Avenue & Millwood Drive AWSC A 0.06 7.3 A 0.28 8.3 Mills 10 El Camino Real & Hillcrest Signalized B 0.39 16.9 B 0.38 15.9 Boulevard 11 El Camino Real & Victoria Avenue Signalized A 0.36 2.9 A 0.36 2.8 12 US 101 NB Off ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.39 11.1 B 0.39 11.1 Avenue 13 US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Signalized B 0.47 10.8 B 0.48 10.8 Avenue 14 Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue Signalized D 0.77 35.3 D 0.78 35.4 15 El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue Signalized E 1.01 57.6 E 1.05 59.8 16 Ashton Avenue & Millbrae Avenue AWSC A 0.18 8.1 A 0.20 8.6 17 El Camino Real & Murchison Drive Signalized C 0.59 29.7 C 0.60 30.8 18 S Magnolia Avenue & Murchison AWSC A 0.18 7.7 A 0.19 7.9 Drive 19 Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive AWSC A 0.21 7.9 A 0.27 8.2 20 El Camino Real & Trousdale Drive Signalized A 0.25 7.1 B 0.26 15.5 21 Magnolia Avenue & Trousdale Drive Signalized A 0.19 6.8 A 0.20 7.7 San Mateo 22 Airport Boulevard & US 101 NB Signalized F 0.48 126.4 F 0.49 100.0 ramps 23 Airport Boulevard & Peninsula Signalized B 0.34 14.3 B 0.36 14.0 Avenue 24 N Humboldt Street & Peninsula Signalized B 0.43 15.8 B 0.44 16.0 Avenue 25 Dwight Road & Peninsula Avenue Signalized A 0.30 8.7 A 0.33 9.3 26 N Amphlett Boulevard & E Polar 3WSC A 0.6 3.6 B 0.67 9.5 Avenue 27 N Humboldt Street & E Poplar Signalized B 0.43 12.6 B 0.68 14.4 Avenue 28 N Delaware Street & E Poplar Signalized C 0.45 24.8 C 0.76 33.9 Avenue 29 N San Mateo Drive & E Poplar Signalized B 0.43 15.8 B 0.67 19.5 Avenue 30 El Camino Real & E Poplar Avenue Signalized C 0.87 25.8 C 0.87 23.1 Aragon 31 El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Signalized A 0.31 6.4 A 0.34 7.3 Road 32 Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal AWSC A 0.18 8.2 A 0.20 8.5 Springs Road 33 El Cerrito Avenue & Crystal Springs AWSC A 0.12 7.4 A 0.16 7.6 Road

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-60 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

Background Back + Proj 8:00-10:00 PM 8:00-10:00 PM # Intersections Control(1) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) LOS(2) V/C(3) Del/Veh(4) 34 Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland 1WSC A N/A 9.7 B N/A 10.0 Drive 35(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Signalized B 0.40 18.7 B 0.41 18.7 ramps 36(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Signalized C 0.21 21.0 C 0.26 20.2 ramps 37(5) Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Signalized B 0.14 15.3 B 0.14 14.9 Avenue Hillsdale 38 El Camino Real & 31st Avenue Signalized B 0.33 13.4 B 0.35 14.4 39 Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st AWSC A 0.24 9.2 A 0.35 10.0 Avenue 40 Del Monte Street & 31st Avenue AWSC A 0.11 7.4 A 0.16 7.6 41 El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Signalized D 0.85 40.8 D 0.88 42.3 Boulevard 42 Alameda de las Pulgas & W AWSC A 0.33 9.8 B 0.35 10.6 Hillsdale Boulevard 43 Del Monte Street & W Hillsdale AWSC A 0.17 7.7 A 0.18 7.8 Boulevard 44 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th AWSC A 0.14 8.0 A 0.16 8.1 Avenue 135 Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Signalized B 0.40 18.7 B 0.41 18.9 ramps 136 Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Signalized C 0.21 21.0 C 0.22 21.2 ramps 137 Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Signalized B 0.14 15.3 B 0.16 14.7 Avenue Notes: Intersection control: signalized or stop control (1WSC – one way, 2WSC – two way, 3WSC – three way, AWSC – all way) Level of Service as defined in Table 4.5-2 Volume to capacity ratio Average delay per vehicle (seconds) Intersections 35-37 were analyzed as part of the Aragon and Hillsdale study areas and the worse LOS reported. Potentially impacted intersections are shaded.

The intersection of El Camino Real & Millbrae is projected to operate at LOS E, meeting its CMP standard.

Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes were based on the Cumulative conditions with the addition of traffic from the SMUHSD Stadium Lighting project. The Cumulative plus Project intersection turning movement volumes are illustrated in Figure 4.5-28 through Figure 4.5-32. Detailed LOS calculations for the Cumulative plus Project condition may be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix F) for both the 6:00 to 8:00 PM and 8:00 to10:00 PM time periods.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-61 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

1. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

2,124 (1,038)

137 (75)

1,886 (1,331) 215 (191)

233 (191) 444 (209)

2. Cunningham Way/Driveway & Crystal Springs Rd

6 (304)668

7(41)67 228 (281) 71 (37) 6(1)

0 (0) 2 (0) 17 (17) 3 (1) 36 (32) 0 (0)

3. El Camino Real & San Felipe Ave

34 (34) 2,416 (1,243) 6(2) 96 (67) 41 (17)

50 (22)

46 (23) 2,159 (1,485) 34 (40)

26 (18) 5(6)

34 (12)

4. El Camino Real & Santa Inez Ave/Park Pl 5. El Camino Real & Park Blvd/San Diego Ave 6. Magnolia Ave/Park Pl & Park Blvd 7. Santa Florita Ave & Park Blvd/Driveway

32 (22) 40 (25) 2,217 (1,101) 2,282 (1,059) 62 (22) 47 (30) 8 (9) 22 (10) 112 (69)

98 (38) 71 (33) 0(0) 102 (52) 0(0)

49 (17)

137 (76) 65 (25)

161 (62) 3 (3) 82 (41) 21 (8) (14) 27

3(3) 33 2(0)

84 (42) 5(3) 2,097 (1,415) 2,089 (1,391)

75 (36) 64 (43)

32 (45) (33) 3 0(0) 33 (4) (32) 3

131 (83)

32 (11) 60 (39) 12 (10) 74 (29) 78 (32) 0(0) 115 (99) 0 (2) 65 (29) 15 (3) 66 (53) 158 (120)

8. El Camino Real & Millwood Dr 9. Magnolia Ave & Millwood Dr

2,079 (1,144) 11 (6)

59 (37) 231 (34) 194 (30) 59 (10) 12 (7) 1(2)

1,918 (1,168) 97 (44)

9(1) 90 (39) 8(0) 26 (20) 67 (214) 29 (174) 45 (56) 7 (2)

LEGEND Figure 3 - Traffic Signal 49 00 - Study Intersection - Stop Control Not to Scale Capuchino High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Cumulative Plus Project Volumes Capuchino High School Cumulative Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-28 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-62 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

10. El Camino Real & Hillcrest Blvd 11. El Camino Real & Victoria Ave 12. US 101 NB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave 13. US 101 SB Off-ramp & Millbrae Ave

35 (24) 15 (10) 2,013 (1,057) 68 (36) 2,589 (1,479) 383 (188) 776 (491) 0 (0) 971 (599) 46 (32) 1,158 (725) 37 (27) 22 (31) 88 (52) 1,886 (1,168) 97 (70) 2,251 (1,371) 45 (0) 165 (93) 776 (574)

860 (543)

219 (139)33 (11) 1,258 (1,054) 154 (154)

14. Rollins Rd & Millbrae Ave 15. El Camino Real & Millbrae Ave 16. Ashton Ave & Millbrae Ave 17. El Camino Real & Murchinson Dr

113 (83) 905 (590) 133 (43) 0 (0) 1,432 (740)825 (696) 813 (501) 308 (187) 0(0) 6 (78) 1,563 (758) 574 (231) 568 (254) 181 (93) 1,297 (720) 0(0) 259 (110) 135 (48) 136 (61) 682 (287) 328 (101) 555 (428) 118 (25) 487 (198)

494 (438) 1,219 (767) 72 (53) 710 (615) 1,201 (674) 92 (0) 104 (41) 0(0) 57 (16) 61 (49) 499 (291) 92 (75) 117 (53) 78 (6) 103 (61) 229 (77) 100 (2) 99 (140) 211 (139) 69 (29) 34 (44) 966 (871) 124 (92) 375 (207)

18. S Magnolia Ave & Murchinson Dr 19.Sequoia Ave & Murchinson Dr 20.El Camino Real & Trousdale Dr 21. Magnolia Ave & Trousdale Dr

182 (93) 78 (29) 80 (64) 129 (70) 56 (25) 1,824 (827) 78 (6) 117 (37) 64 (10) 79 (60) 42 (13) 196 (135) 0 (0) 679 (294) 98 (49) 89 (48) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (26) 5(0) 109 (50) 0(0) 83 (6) 0(0) 98 (43) 0(0) 1,529 (801) 0(0) 86 (52)

gg 52 (17) 13 (1) 0(0) 13 (1) 63 (17) 26 (9) 9(7) 0(0) 36 (2) 6 (78) 0(0) 44 (9) 151 (55) 0 (0) 1 (13) 0 (0) 4 (2) 1 (13) 1,386 (663)

LEGEND Figure 503 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Mills High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Cumulative Plus Project Volumes Mills High School Cumulative Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-29 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-63 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

22. Airport Blvd & US 101 NB Ramp

908 (326)

0(0) 132 (57) 423 (343)

0(0)

1,003 (554)

23. Airport Blvd & Peninsula Ave

7(7) 20 (9) 22 (21) 1,163 (556)

20 (7) 517 (392)

24. N Humboldt St & Peninsula Ave

142 (83) 82 (33) 847 (496) 74 (13) 313 (89) 24 (18)

159 (68) 41 (5) 59 (46)

17 (11)

504 (454)96 (76)

25. Dwight Rd & Peninsula Ave

13 (18) 465 (318) 13 (8) 84 (34) 270 (88)

12 (1)

268 (195) 106 (37) 242 (143)

11 (5)

317 (296) 343 (131)

26. N Amphlett Blvd & E Polar Ave/US 101 27. N Humboldt St & E Poplar Ave 28. N Delaware St & E Poplar Ave 29. N San Mateo Dr & E Poplar Ave

27 (18) 81 (61) 344 (323) 3(3) 362 (230) 72 (318) 387 (254) 452 (200) 215 (87) 103 (39) 157 (346) 844 (430) 125 (458) 27 (9) 5 (16) 469 (212) 161 (50) 10 (1) 601 (287) 13 (6) 25 (7) 3(4) 3(2) 33 (8) 489 (226) 264 (121) 573 (265) 776 (337) 102 (43) 173 (66) 323 (151) 32 (10)

5 (5) 190 (192) 619 (236) 3 (1) 595 (861) 482 (307) 218 (545) 563 (165) 102 (33) 122 (52) 504 (199)

30. El Camino Real & E Poplar Ave

75 (305) 155 (28) 652 (399) 468 (204) 427 (161) 76 (303)

283 (33) 804 (494) 487 (214)

810 (350) 193 (82) 877 (369)

LEGEND Figure 513 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale San Mateo High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE Cumulative Plus Project Volumes P:\P\15\15209 000 SMUHSD Stadium Lighting EIR\06 Graphics\Corel / San Mateo High School Cumulative Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-30 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-64 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

31. El Camino Real & Crystal Springs Rd

1,347 (706)

178 (78) 1,526 (833) 32 (17)

28 (26) 201 (94)

32. Alameda de las Pulgas & Crystal Springs Rd

161 (70) 261 (67)

291 (129) 120 (100)

201 (27) 142 (52)

33. El Cerrito Ave & Crystal Springs Rd

29 (13) 26 (14) 267 (135)

9(6)

43 (5)

274 (63)

34. Alameda de las Pulgas & Woodland Dr

361 (101)

83 (24) 450 (173) 164 (25)

25 (113) 79 (148)

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp 36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp 37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

226 (100) 158 (101) 186 (69) 0(1) 239 (263) 620 (289) 329 (194) 611 (308) 0 (0) 528 (262) 290 (241) 59 (16)

70 (77) 0(0) 629 (225) 601 (244) 336 (141) 39 (12) 482 (216) 0(0)

0(0) 0 (0) 497 (124) 0 (0) 601 (244) 66 (27)

LEGEND Figure 523 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Aragon High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Cumulative Plus Project Volumes Aragon High School Cumulative Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-31 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-65 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

35.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 WB Ramp

226 (100) 0 (1) 648 (291) 329 (194) 287 (201)

631 (253) 336 (141)

36.Alameda de las Pulgas & SR 92 EB Ramp

233 (183) 582 (236)

72 (105) 573 (270)

457 (121) 573 (270)66 (27)

37. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 20th Ave

158 (101) 186 (69) 665 (282) 0 (0) 59 (16)

0(0)

39 (12) 456 (270) 0 (0)

0(0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

38. El Camino Real & 31st Ave

112 (28) 0(0) 1,724 (1,070) 380 (444) 0(0) 511 (274) 0(0) 2,037 (1,000) 125 (13)

380 (444) 0 (0)112 (28)

39. Alameda de las Pulgas & 31st Ave 40. Del Monte St & 31st Ave 41. El Camino Real & W Hillsdale Blvd 42.Alameda de las Pulgas & W Hillsdale Blvd

170 (47) 290 (175) 88 (55) 1(3) 388 (226) 71 (141) 364 (157) 135 (53) 974 (699) 233 (134) 113 (115) 39 (23) 243 (78) 425 (389) 532 (360) 98 (62) 64 (20) 3(0) 79 (37) 0(0) 22 (26) 255 (207) 0 (0) 128 (100) 352 (271) 56 (18)

251 (104) 93 (45)

34 (8) 402 (96) 68 (25) 65 (17) 4(1) 431 (135) 7(4) 42 (11) 35 (7) 17 (43) 1(2) 249 (93) 181 (37) 141 (176) 64 (24) 9 (0) 187 (143) 17 (15) 508 (587) 310 (213)

43.Del Monte St & W Hillsdale Blvd 44. Alameda de las Pulgas & W 39th Ave

47 (15) 20 (11) 255 (148) 395 (223) 19 (8) 24 (11) 10 (4)

1(0) 0(1) 6 (2) 11 (4) 22 (5)

1(0)

gg 11 (2) 0(0) 2(0) 485 (116) 16 (5) 8(6) 4 (19) 324 (106) 6 (5) 2 (1) 5 (6)

LEGEND Figure 533 00 - Study Intersection - Traffic Signal - Stop Control Not to Scale Hillsdale High School XX (XX) - Pre-Game/Post-Game Peak Hour Traffic Volume NO SCALE / Cumulative Plus Project Volumes Hillsdale High School Cumulative Source: DKS, 2016. Plus Project Volumes Figure 4.5-32 San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-66 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

As shown in Table 4.5-12, the following intersections would operate worse than LOS D during the 6:00 to 8:00 PM time period under Cumulative plus Project conditions:

• El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millwood Drive (City of Millbrae) • Rollins Road & Millbrae Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Murchison Drive (City of Burlingame) • Airport Boulevard & US 101 northbound ramps (City of San Mateo) • North Delaware Street & East Poplar Avenue (City of San Mateo) • El Camino Real & East Poplar Avenue (City of San Mateo) • El Camino Real & West Hillsdale Boulevard (City of San Mateo)

The intersection of North Delaware Street & East Poplar Avenue has a potentially significant impact because it would operate at a deficient LOS under Cumulative conditions and the average delay would increase by more than four seconds with the addition of Project traffic.

The intersection of El Camino Real & West Hillsdale Boulevard has a potentially significant impact because it would operate worse than the standard under Cumulative conditions and the average delay would increase by more than four seconds with the addition of Project traffic. Although these impacts would occur fewer than 10 times per year, the traffic thresholds for the cities of Millbrae and San Mateo do not account for the frequency of the impact. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, even an infrequent traffic impact that exceeds the LOS or average delay standards would be considered a significant impact.

With the addition of Project traffic, the remaining intersections that would operate below LOS D under Cumulative plus Project conditions would result in increases in average vehicle delay of fewer than four seconds due to the proposed project and therefore would not be significantly impacted.

As shown in Table 4.5-13, the following intersections would operate worse than LOS D during the 8:00 to 10:00 PM time period under Cumulative plus Project conditions:

• El Camino Real & Park Boulevard/San Diego Avenue (City of Millbrae) • El Camino Real & Millwood Drive (City of Millbrae)

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-67 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

• El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue (City of Millbrae) • Airport Boulevard & US 101 northbound ramps (City of San Mateo)

Again, because the City of Millbrae does not specify a threshold of significance for intersections operating below standard under baseline conditions, further consideration is needed to define whether the proposed project is responsible for an impact at the intersection of El Camino Real and Park Boulevard. This is a stop-controlled intersection that is currently experiencing deficient LOS F under Existing conditions. The addition of project traffic would increase the delay already experienced on the lower-volume minor street approach but would not impact the free flow of traffic on the major street. Because the majority of traffic flowing through the intersection would not experience increased delay, this intersection is not considered impacted.

El Camino Real & Millbrae Avenue meets its CMP LOS standard of E under Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project conditions and is thus not considered impacted.

The intersection of Airport Boulevard & US 101 northbound ramps would not be significantly impacted because the average delay would decrease with the addition of Project traffic. This can occur when the existing green time is better utilized by the addition of project generated traffic.

Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1(a) would reduce the project’s traffic impacts under Cumulative plus Project traffic conditions at El Camino Real & Millwood Drive to a less than significant level.

The intersection of North Delaware Street & East Poplar Avenue is located directly adjacent to the school and on the shortest path from El Camino Real to the school. As a result, a large amount of the project traffic goes through this intersection. Because the intersection is already signalized and the surrounding land use is very close to the roadway, there is no feasible mitigation to address the impact.

The intersection El Camino Real & West Hillsdale Boulevard has high existing volume and is the signal currently timed to allow the four approaches separate phases because of the unique configuration of intersection, located as an overpass over El Camino Real. The physical structure of the intersection prevents the signal timing from being adjusted enough to mitigate the increased delay, and as a result there is no feasible mitigation to address the impact.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-68 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

As discussed above, no feasible mitigation measures were identified for the intersections of North Delaware Street & East Poplar Avenue and El Camino Real & West Hillsdale Boulevard. Thus, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-69 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 4.5-70 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA-Required Discussions

5.0 OTHER CEQA REQUIRED SECTIONS

This section discusses growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible changes, and energy impacts that would be caused by the project.

5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to induce growth by, for example, fostering economic or population growth, or removing an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth-inducing potential is therefore considered significant if growth induced by the project could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

5.1.1 Economic and Population Growth

The proposed project involves adding stadium lighting at five high schools. The proposed project would not involve residential uses and therefore would not directly result in population growth. The project would not increase or facilitate an increase in school enrollment and would not generate a substantial number of new jobs. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial indirect population growth. The project would generate temporary employment opportunities during lighting installation, which would primarily draw workers primarily from the existing regional work force. Therefore, the proposed project would not be growth-inducing with respect to jobs and the economy. The proposed project would not induce economic expansion to the extent that significant environmental impacts directly associated with the project’s contribution would occur.

5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth

The project sites are located in a fully urbanized area that is well served by existing infrastructure. As discussed in Sections XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, and IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Initial Study (Appendix A), existing utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No new or widened/expanded roads or expanded/improved utility infrastructure would be required. Because the project would not require the extension of new infrastructure through or to undeveloped areas or increase the potential intensity of development, project implementation would not remove an obstacle to growth. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b) requires that an EIR identify those significant impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level with the application of mitigation measures. The implications and reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding, must be described. As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, of the EIR, impacts resulting from crowd noise associated with nighttime events at the stadium would be significant and unavoidable. As discussed in Section 4.5, Transportation and Traffic, of the EIR, impacts resulting from traffic

San Mateo Union High School District 5-1

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA-Required Discussions

generated by future nighttime events at the stadium would be significant and unavoidable. No other unavoidably significant impacts would occur. It should be noted that the significant and unavoidable impacts for noise and traffic would occur approximately 10 or fewer times per year. Nonetheless, this analysis determined that those impacts would be significant and unavoidable because the identified thresholds for those issue areas do not account for the frequency of adverse effects.

CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(c) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Such significant irreversible environmental changes may include the following:

• Use of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project which would be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use unlikely. • Primary impacts and, particularly secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) which generally commit future generations to similar uses. • Irreversible damage which may result from environmental accidents associated with the project.

Installation of lighting poles and associated electrical conduits would require building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the proposed project. The addition of new stadium lighting on the project sites would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources in the form of electricity consumption. Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.

As discussed above under Subsection 5.1.2, the proposed project does not involve any roadway or utility infrastructure improvements which would generally commit future generations to similar uses.

As discussed in Section 4.5, Transportation and Traffic, of the EIR and in Sections XVI, Transportation/Traffic and VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Initial Study, Appendix A of the EIR, the proposed project would not result in any environmental accidents that may cause irreversible damage.

5.3 ENERGY EFFECTS

The CEQA Guidelines Appendix F requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy consumption and/or conservation impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy.

The proposed project would involve the use of energy during the construction and operational phases of the project. Energy use during the construction phase would be in the form of fuel consumption (e.g.: gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, and other machinery that may be used to install the lighting poles and public address system. In addition, temporary grid power may also be provided to any temporary construction trailers or

San Mateo Union High School District 5-2

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA-Required Discussions

electric construction equipment. Long-term operation of the proposed project would require permanent grid connections for electricity to power the stadium lights and public address systems. In addition, the increase in vehicle trips associated with the project would increase fuel consumption within the area.

Currently, the athletic fields at the five high school sites occasionally use portable lighting systems that are powered by diesel generators to provide stadium lighting for night games. Therefore, by eliminating the diesel generators, the proposed project would reduce diesel fuel use.

The permanent stadium lighting would consist of a modern LED lighting system. LED lights are more energy efficient than the current portable lighting system. The proposed project would reduce diesel fuel use over the long-term by installing energy-effiecient LED lighting at five high school stadiums. Therefore, the proposed project would not use energy in an inefficient or wasteful manner.

San Mateo Union High School District 5-3

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 5.0 Other CEQA-Required Discussions

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 5-4

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

6.0 ALTERNATIVES

The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs identify and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, while still satisfying most of the basic project objectives. The CEQA Guidelines also set forth the intent and extent of alternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR.

The following discussion evaluates alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the relative environmental advantages and disadvantages of each are weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that the range of alternatives addressed in an EIR should be governed by a rule of reason. Not every conceivable alternative must be addressed, nor do infeasible alternatives need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency or other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either avoiding or substantially lessening any significant environmental effects of the project, even if the alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. The alternatives discussion should not consider alternatives whose implementation is remote or speculative, and the analysis of alternatives need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed Project.

Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include: (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project, (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the proposed project, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. The analysis in this EIR shows that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to crowd noise at adjacent residences at all five project sites and will have significant and unavoidable traffic impacts at four intersections (associated with Capuchino High School, Hillsdale High School, and San Mateo High School). All other impacts of the project can either be mitigated to a level of less than significant or are less than significant. The alternatives examined herein represent alternatives that could potentially reduce or avoid the significant and less than significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.

As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this section of the EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:

• Alternative 1: No Project • Alternative 2: Reduced Project • Alternative 3: Trip Reduction Program

San Mateo Union High School District 6-1

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

This section also includes a discussion of the “environmentally superior alternative” among the alternatives analyzed.

As indicated above, project alternatives should feasibly be able to attain “most of the basic objectives of the project” (Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines), even though implementation of the project alternatives might, to some degree, impede the attainment of those objectives or be more costly (Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines). The following are the project objectives as described in Section 2.0, Project Description.

1) Extend play time on the fields and expand student participation in athletic programs. 2) Achieve parity with the Peninsula Athletic League by providing permanent stadium lighting to allow for the hosting of evening athletic contests. 3) Provide extended availability of the athletic fields to improve student academic performance by minimizing early class dismissal for student athletes. 4) Increase the evening availability of the stadiums for sports practices and other events, which will allow student athletes to enroll in 7th period classes and allow school start times to align with the best practices set by the Board of Pediatrics Physicians. 5) Allow for the scheduling of games at times when students, parents, and community members can more easily attend the events. 6) Improve the District’s ability to serve the community by providing the opportunity for expanded community use of the stadium, including early morning track use and evening community sports league use. 7) Provide energy efficient, focused lighting with minimal glare. 8) Improve athlete safety by providing superior lighting conditions during evening practices and sports events. 9) Eliminate the diesel generators, thereby reducing air pollution and unnecessary noise.

6.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED AS INFEASIBLE

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c), the District considered several alternatives that were rejected as infeasible during the Project’s scoping process. Those alternatives and the reasons the District decided not to carry them forward for further environmental analysis include the following.

As discussed under Impact N-2 in Section 4.4, Noise, nearby sensitive receptors at all five project sites would experience median (L50) noise levels above 60 dBA during a nighttime football game. As discussed under Impact N-4 in Section 4.4, nearby sensitive receptors at three of the five project sites (Aragon, Capuchino, and San Mateo high schools) would experience an increase in CNEL of more than 3 dBA during a day when a nighttime football game would be played. The use of appropriate sound barriers would reduce the hourly L50 sound level below 60 dBA at the five project sites during nighttime games. These sound barriers would vary in height and length, depending on the topography of the project site and the location and height of nearby sensitive receptors. In some cases, the sound barrier would need to run the entire length of one or more sides of the athletic field. In other cases, the sound barrier would need to be several stories tall in order to shield second and third floor residents from elevated noise levels. For example, the Woodlake Apartments adjacent to San Mateo High School would

San Mateo Union High School District 6-2 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

experience a game-day CNEL noise increase of 4.1 dBA due to field activities, a significant impact. Construction of an 8- to 10-foot sound wall adjacent to these apartments would reduce crowd noise to less than significant levels for the first floor residents, but would not reduce noise levels for second and third floor residents. For these residences, impacts would remain significant.

The District considered an alternative under which sound walls of sufficient height and length to reduce crowd noise for nearby sensitive receptors at all five project sites would be built. This alternative would generally meet all of the project objectives. As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, in order to reduce noise a sound barrier must break the line of sight between the noise source and the noise receptor. For the three-story Woodlake Apartments, a 30-foot-high sound wall would be needed to break the line of site. At other locations, the sound wall would need to run the entire length of one or more of the stadium’s sides. For example, an effective noise barrier at Hillsdale High School would need to run the length of the stadium along both Alameda de las Pulgas and 31st Avenue. This barrier would need to be approximately 15 feet high in order to reduce the median (L50) noise levels during a nighttime game below 60 dBA. The District determined that this alternative would be infeasible for several reasons. First, the construction of sound walls several stories in height would create aesthetic impacts; it would not be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area and would potentially be an eyesore for the residents. Second, a 15 to 30-foot high wall could be an earthquake hazard and damage property or life in the event of ground shaking. Third, a solid wall would introduce a public safety hazard by providing a visual barrier behind which criminals could lurk or abscond. Lastly, effective sound walls would be cost-prohibitive. For these reasons, this alternative was considered but rejected as infeasible.

6.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

6.2.1 Alternative Description

This alternative assumes that the proposed project is not implemented and the project sites remain in their current conditions. Currently, stadium lighting for night games and practices at the high schools are provided by portable lighting systems that are powered by diesel generators. This no project alternative assumes that these portable lighting systems would continue to be used as needed.

6.2.2 Impact Analysis

The No Project alternative would involve no changes to the physical environment and thus would have no environmental effects. As such, air pollution emissions, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise associated with construction would be avoided because no lighting or public address (PA) systems would be installed. In addition, operational impacts associated with air pollution and GHG emissions, PA system and nighttime crowd noise, and event traffic would not occur. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable noise and traffic impacts. No mitigation measures would be required for the No Project alternative. Overall impacts would be lower than those of the proposed project since

San Mateo Union High School District 6-3 SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

no change to environmental conditions would occur. However, noise, air pollution, and GHG emissions associated with the diesel generators would continue to occur. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project. This alternative would not: extend play time on the fields (Objective 1), achieve parity with the Peninsula Athletic League (Objective 2), proved extended availability of the athletic fields (Objective 3), increase the evening availability of the stadiums (Objective 4), allow for the scheduling of games when more people can attend(Objective 5), improve the District’s ability to serve the community (Objective 6), provide energy efficient, focused lighting (Objective 7), improve athletic safety (Objective 8), nor would it eliminate the diesel generators, reducing air pollution and unnecessary noise (Objective 9).

6.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED PROJECT

6.3.1 Alternative Description

This alternative would involve the installation of stadium lighting at only two of the five high schools associated with this project: Aragon High School and Mills High School. Installation of stadium lighting and PA systems would not occur at Capuchino High School, Hillsdale High School, or San Mateo High School. These schools would continue to use portable diesel- powered lighting occasionally for nighttime events.

This alternative would meet all of the objectives of the proposed project, but only at two out of the five comprehensive high schools within the District. For Capuchino High School, Hillsdale High School, and San Mateo High School, none of the project objectives would be met.

6.3.2 Impact Analysis

a. Aesthetics. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would involve the addition of lights and light poles. However, this alternative would only involve stadium light installation at two of the five high schools. As with the proposed project, for these two schools, light poles would not block views of scenic resources, and would not conflict with the visual character of the stadiums. Therefore, like the proposed project, this alternative would have a less than significant impact to scenic vistas and overall visual character.

Under this alternative, portable lighting used for evening football games at two of the five high schools would be replaced with new permanent stadium lighting. This would increase nighttime lighting and glare, potentially increasing sky glow and illuminating nearby residences. Stadium lights would only be used infrequently, would be cut off by 9:40 PM, and are located in urban areas with dense development and are surrounded on all sides by lighting. Therefore, stadium lighting would not substantially contribute to sky glow. Although this alternative would involve stadium lighting at three fewer campuses compared to the proposed project, the anticipated contribution of each stadium to overall sky glow is minimal such that impacts to night sky visibility would remain unchanged.

Since this project would not involve the installation of permanent lighting at San Mateo High School, Capuchino High School, or Hillsdale High School, this alternative would avoid the potential for illumination of nearby residential uses. However, with the installation of stadium

San Mateo Union High School District 6-4

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

lighting these schools, light intensity and glare at nearby residences would not exceed thresholds. Nonetheless, the potential for nearby residences to experience a small degree of discomfort glare during evening athletic events at the stadium would be avoided. Impacts related to light and glare at nearby residences would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

b. Air Quality. As with the proposed project, this alternative would involve temporary construction activities that would generate temporary air pollutant emissions. For each campus, construction would occur over approximately 1 ½ months. Construction may occur simultaneously at more than one campus. Under this alternative, construction would only occur at two campuses instead of five. Therefore, the overall amount of construction-related emissions would be reduced compared to the proposed project. For the proposed project, it was assumed that no more than two campuses would undergo specific construction components simultaneously. For this alternative, it is assumed that construction would occur at the two campuses simultaneously. Therefore, like the proposed project, this alternative would involve construction of the stadium lighting at two campuses simultaneously. Maximum daily emissions would be the same as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in an increase in operational air pollution emissions from development of stadium lighting. Emissions would result from electricity to power the lighting and PA system and additional vehicle trips associated to and from events and the stadiums. However, instead of operational emissions associated with stadium lighting occurring at five high schools, emissions would only occur at two schools. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, overall operational emissions would be reduced. Like the proposed project, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

c. Greenhouse Gases. As with the proposed project, construction of stadium lighting associated with this alternative would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily due to the operation of construction equipment and truck trips. Because this alternative would involve construction at two campuses instead of five, overall construction-related GHG emissions would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Like this proposed project, this alternative would result in operational GHG emissions from electricity to power the lighting and PA system and additional vehicle trips associated to and from events and the stadiums. However, this alternative would only involve stadium lighting at two high schools instead of five. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, overall GHG emissions would be reduced. Like the proposed project, GHG emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

d. Noise. Construction-related noise and vibration impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project because project construction would require the same types of construction equipment. However, this alternative would involve stadium lighting installation at two campuses instead of five. Should construction occur simultaneously, construction would occur over approximately 1 ½ months and should it occur sequentially, construction would occur over approximately 3 months. Therefore, the overall duration of construction activities would be reduced as compared to that of the proposed project because the scale of development and

San Mateo Union High School District 6-5

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

length of construction would be reduced. As with the proposed project, construction and vibration would not exceed thresholds and nearby sensitive receptors. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.

Vehicle trips under Alternative 2 would be reduced compared to the proposed project as this alternative would involve installation of stadium lighting at two campuses instead of five. The incremental increase of traffic noise on roadways surrounding Capuchino, Hillsdale, and San Mateo high schools would not occur under this alternative. For Mills and Aragon high schools, like the proposed project, the change in noise from traffic generated would not exceed noise thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.

Like the proposed project, under this alternative the installation of stadium lights and PA systems would result in a shift towards nighttime events and would increase crowd and PA noise for nearby sensitive receptors. The same as under the proposed project, hourly L50 noise levels during nighttime games would exceed 60 dBA for receptors adjacent to Aragon High School and Mills High School. Also, this alternative like the proposed project would result in a game-day CNEL increase of more than 3 dBA for sensitive receptors near Aragon High School. Operational noise impacts would be eliminated for sensitive receptors near Capuchino, Hillsdale, and San Mateo high schools under this alternative. This alternative would reduce operational impacts compared to the proposed project and would eliminate the significant and unavoidable noise impacts for receptors near Capuchino High School, Hillsdale High School, and San Mateo High School.

e. Transportation and Traffic. As discussed in Section 4.5, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed project would result in a significant but mitigable impact at the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo High School) and in significant and unavoidable impacts at the intersection of El Camino Real and Millwood Drive during existing plus project, background plus project, and cumulative plus project conditions (Capuchino High School) and at the intersections of North Delaware Street and East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo High School) and El Camino Real and West Hillsdale Boulevard (Hillsdale High School) during cumulative plus project conditions. Under this alternative, stadium lighting installation would not occur at Capuchino High School, Hillsdale High School, or San Mateo High School. At these schools, events would continue to occur during the daytime and use portable stadium lighting for the limited number of nighttime events that occur. Therefore, a shift towards later stadium activities and an increase in trips during the evening hours would not occur at these schools. The significant and unavoidable traffic impacts associated with these schools would be avoided. Mitigation Measures T-1(a) and T-1(b) would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant.

6.4 ALTERNATIVE 3: TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM

6.4.1 Alternative Description

Like the proposed project, this alternative would involve the installation of stadium lighting and PA systems at five comprehensive high schools within the District. This alternative would also involve development of a trip reduction program for events held at Capuchino, Hillsdale, and San Mateo high schools. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce the number of vehicle

San Mateo Union High School District 6-6

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

trips to and from the stadiums at these schools during evening events. The trip reduction program may include: a shuttle from a nearby parking area to the school or incentives for carpooling to the events.

This alternative would meet all of the objectives of the proposed project.

6.4.2 Impact Analysis

a. Aesthetics. Like the proposed project, this alternative would involve the addition of lights and light poles at five high school stadiums. Therefore, impacts related to scenic views, visual character, and light and glare would be the same as the proposed project. Aesthetic impacts would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in an increase in operational air pollution emissions from development of stadium lighting. Emissions would result from electricity to power the lighting and PA system and additional vehicle trips associated to and from events and the stadiums. Since this alternative would involve a trip reduction program to reduce the number of single vehicle trips to and from the stadiums at three of the five high schools, transportation-related emissions would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, overall operational emissions would be reduced. Like the proposed project, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

c. Greenhouse Gases. As with the proposed project, construction of stadium lighting associated with this alternative would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily due to the operation of construction equipment and truck trips. This alternative would involve the same amount of construction as the proposed project. Therefore, overall construction-related GHG emissions would be the same as the proposed project. Like this proposed project, this alternative would result in operational GHG emissions from electricity to power the lighting and PA system and additional vehicle trips to and from events and the stadiums. Since this alternative would involve a trip reduction program to reduce the number of single vehicle trips to and from the stadiums at three of the five high schools, mobile GHG emissions would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, overall GHG emissions would be reduced. Like the proposed project, GHG emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

d. Noise. Under this alternative, the overall duration of construction activities would be the same as compared to that of the proposed project because the scale of development and

San Mateo Union High School District 6-7

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

length of construction would be the same. Construction-related noise and vibration impacts would be the same as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, construction and vibration would not exceed thresholds and nearby sensitive receptors. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.

Vehicle trips under Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to the proposed project. The incremental increase of traffic noise on roadways surrounding Capuchino, Hillsdale, and San Mateo high schools would be slightly reduced under this alternative. Like the proposed project, the change in noise from project-related traffic would not exceed noise thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.

PA system and crowd noise would be the same as with the proposed project. Therefore, like the proposed project, crowd noise and operation of the new public address systems at all project sites would generate noise levels that would exceed local applicable standards for some sensitive receptors. Noise impacts at all five project sites would continue to be significant and unavoidable.

e. Transportation and Traffic. As discussed in Section 4.5, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed project would result in a significant but mitigable impact at the intersection of North Amphlett Boulevard and East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo High School) and significant and unavoidable impacts at the intersection of El Camino Real and Millwood Drive during existing plus project, background plus project, and cumulative plus project conditions (Capuchino High School) and at the intersections of North Delaware Street and East Poplar Avenue (San Mateo High School) and El Camino Real and West Hillsdale Boulevard (Hillsdale High School) during cumulative plus project conditions. Under this alternative, stadium lighting installation would continue to occur at Capuchino High School, San Mateo High School, and Hillsdale High School, but these schools would institute trip reduction programs for evening events. Trip reduction programs are assumed to reduce trips by approximately 5-10%. This would reduce traffic at nearby intersections before and after games, but likely would not eliminate all the significant and unavoidable impacts. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures T-1(a) and T-1(b) would still be required.

6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

Table 6-1 compares the physical impacts for each of the alternatives to the physical impacts of the proposed project. The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) would be the overall environmentally superior alternative since it would avoid all project impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not achieve the basic project objectives as stated in Section 2.0, Project Description.

San Mateo Union High School District 6-8

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

Table 6-1 Summary Comparison of Proposed Project Alternatives Proposed Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Trip Issue Area Project No Project Reduced Project Reduction Program Aesthetics Class III Class IV / - Class III / - Class III / =

Air Quality Class III Class IV / - Class III / - Class III / -

Greenhouse Class III Class IV / - Class III / - Class III / - Gas Emissions

Noise Class I Class IV / - Class I / - Class I / -

Traffic Class I Class IV / - Class III / - Class I / -

Class I = significant and unavoidable impact Class II = less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated Class III = less than significant impact Class IV = no impact * Impact classifications are shown for the greatest impact within the issue area (i.e., if Class II and III impacts were identified within the issue area, the table indicates the overall impact within that issue area as Class II). - impact would be lower than that of the proposed project + impact would be greater than that of the proposed project = impact would be the same as the proposed project

Among the development options, Alternative 2 (Reduced Project) and Alterative 3 (Trip Reduction Program) would reduce vehicle trips and therefore would reduce impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and traffic. Alternative 2 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable traffic and noise impacts; therefore, Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, since Alternative 2 would not involve installation of stadium lighting at three of the five high schools, it would not meet any of the project objectives at those three schools.

San Mateo Union High School District 6-9

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 6.0 Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 6-10

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers

7.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARERS

7.1 REFERENCES

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Cal June 2010a. Update CEQA Guidelines. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQM D%20CEQA%20Guidelines_December%202010.ashx

BAAQMD. June 2015. San Mateo County. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/in- your-community/san-mateo-county

BAAQMD. April 2015. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status

BAAQMD. December 2005. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy.

BAAQMD. December 2010b. 2010 Clean Air Plan.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. December 7, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf

California Air Resources Board. October 2015. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm

California Air Resources Board (CARB). Frequently Asked Questions About Executive Order B- 30-15. April 2015. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/2030_carbon_target_adaptation_faq.pdf

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January 2008.

California Air Resource Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 1, 2015. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf

California Air Resource Board, Air Quality Data Statistics: Top Four Summary, 2014. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php

San Mateo Union High School District 7-1

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers

California Air Resources Board. June 2015. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2000 to 2013. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm

California Air Resources Board. May 2015. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2020 Business-as- Usual (BAU) Emissions Projections. Available online at: http://arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Climate Action Team Biennial Report. Final Report. April 2010. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CAT-1000-2010-004/CAT-1000-2010-004.PDF

California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA], March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.PDF

California Natural Resources Agency. December 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaption Strategy. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CNRA-1000-2010- 010/CNRA-1000-2010-010.PDF

DKS. March 14, 2016. San Mateo Union High School District Stadium Lighting Project Transportation Impact Analysis Draft Report.

Glendale Unified School District. Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration. June 2012. Available online at: http://www.gusd.net/cms/lib03/CA01000648/Centricity/Domain/53/WEB%20PDF%20 HooverHS_Field_Lights_DraftISND_2012-06-04.pdf

Hiscocks, Peter D. Measuring Light. Ryerson University. Updated January 2011. Available online at: http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~phiscock/astronomy/light-pollution/photometry.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. [Kroeze, C.; Mosier, A.; Nevison, C.; Oenema, O.; Seitzinger, S.; Cleemput, O. van; Conrad, R.; Mitra, A.P.; H.U., Neue; Sass, R.]. Paris: OECD, 1997.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel

San Mateo Union High School District 7-2

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers

and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

International Commission on Illumination (CIE). Technical Report: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations. 2003.

Lighting Research Center, National Lighting Product Information Program. What is Light Pollution? 2007. Available online at: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightinganswers/lightpollution/lightpollution.as p

Life Science!, Inc. March 2004. South Bay Salt Ponds Initial Stewardship Plan Final EIR. Available at: http://www.southbayrestoration.org/pdf_files/Init%20Stewardship%20EIR- EIS/Final%20C1%20to%20C5.pdf

Millbrae, City of. City of Millbrae General Plan. November 1998. Available online at: http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=161

Millbrae, City of. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Millbrae General Plan Revision. October 1998.

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Annual Greenhouse Gas Index. September 2010. Available online at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Novato Unified School District. PBC Parcels 1A and 1B Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. June 2006. Available online at: http://www.nusd.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_39712/File/Business/Hamilton%20Parce ls/Parcel%201B%20MND%20Original%20(DRAFT)%206.06.pdf

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change.

Parmesan C, Galbraith H. 2004. Observed Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in North America. Arlington, VA: Pew Cent. Global Climate Change

Pennsylvania Outdoor Lighting Council. Common Lighting Terms Defined. No date. Available online at: http://www.polcouncil.org/polc2/common_lighting_terms_defined.PDF

RGC Acoustics. April 8, 2016. San Mateo Union High School District Field Lighting Project – Assessment of Crowd and PA Noise Impact.

San Bruno, City of. San Bruno General Plan. March 2009. Available online at: https://sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24024

San Diego Unified School District. Crawford High School and Main Middle School Athletic Facility Upgrade and Modernization Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. May 2014. Available online at:

San Mateo Union High School District 7-3

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers

https://www.sandiegounified.org/sites/default/files_link/district/files/facilities/environ mental_studies/crawfordhs/draft%20eir/CHS_MMS_Draft_EIR.pdf

San Mateo, City of. San Mateo General Plan. October 2010. Available online at: http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/index.aspx?NID=2021

San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD). “About the District.” Available: http://www.smuhsd.org/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1324365621336, accessed March 24, 2016.

Shuster, Jeff. White Paper: Addressing Glare in Solid-State Lighting. Ephesus Lighting. January 2014. Available online at: http://ephesuslighting.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/01/Addressing-Glare.pdf

Southern California Air Quality Management District, CEQA Handbook, 1993.

United Nations (n.d.) Gateway to the United Nations Systems Work on Climate Change: Durban conference delivers breakthrough in international community’s response to climate change. Available online at: http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gateway/the- negotiations/durban

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). August 2007. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available online at: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/applicatio n/pdf/unfccc_conv_rat.pdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). November 2011. Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its sixteenth session. Available online at: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/awgkp_o utcome.pdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). March 15, 2012. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. Available online at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf

United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 2009. August 2010. Available online at: http://www.eia.gov/aer/envir.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014. U. S. EPA #430-R-16-002. February 2016. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard. U. S. EPA #452/P-12-001. January 2013. Available: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/010913_pb-draft-pa.pdf

San Mateo Union High School District 7-4

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers

Worland, J. December 12, 2015. What to Know About the Historic ‘Paris Agreement’ on Climate Change. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4146764/paris-agreement-climate-cop- 21/

World Meteorological Organization. March 2013. A summary of current and climate change findings and figures.

7.2 REPORT PREPARERS

This EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., under contract to the San Mateo Union High School District. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. Richard Daulton, MURP, Principal Joe Power, AICP, Principal Stephen Svete, AICP, LEED AP ND, Principal Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Senior Program Manager Matthew Long, MESc, MPP, Project Manager Jonathan Berlin, MESM, Associate Environmental Planner Hannah Mize, Associate Environmental Planner Ken Chen, Associate Environmental Planner

DKS Associates (transportation study) William R. Loudon, PE, Principal Josh Pilachowski, PE, Project Manager Erin Vaca, Transportation Planner

RGD Acoustics (stadium noise study) Alan Rosen, Principal Harold Goldberg, P.E. Peter Huson, Ph.D.

San Mateo Union High School District 7-5

SMUHSD Stadium Improvement Project EIR Section 7.0 References and Report Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.

San Mateo Union High School District 7-6