HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEIR_2017 OPSP Update_Dec 2017OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE AND DETAILS FOR PHASE II, III & IV
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2010022070
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
L A M P H I E R -G R E G O R Y
U R B A N P L A N N I N G ,E N V I R O N M E N T A L A N A L Y S I S &P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T |5 1 0 .5 3 5 .6 6 9 0
December 2017
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE i
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Subsequent EIR ........................................................................... 1-1
Introduction to this Document ......................................................................................................... 1-1
Previous Analysis and Subsequent EIR ................................................................................. 1-1
Subsequent EIR Organization and Analysis .................................................................................... 1-3
Organization of this Document .............................................................................................. 1-3
Focus of SEIR Analysis ......................................................................................................... 1-4
Format of Environmental Review .......................................................................................... 1-4
Impact Statements and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 1-5
SEIR Review Process ....................................................................................................................... 1-6
Chapter 2: Executive Summary and Impact Overview ................................................................. 2-1
Summary Description ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2017 OPSP Update Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 2-1
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts That Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less Than
Significant .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
Impacts Reduced to a Level of Less Than Significant Through Mitigation .............................. 2-2
Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 2-5
Chapter 3: Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3-1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1
Oyster Point Specific Plan Location and 2017 OPSP Update Area ................................................. 3-1
Site Conditions and Existing Uses ................................................................................................... 3-1
Changes to Site Conditions from the 2011 EIR ..................................................................... 3-2
2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Description ...................................................................... 3-2
2011 OPSP Development Assumptions in the Update Area .................................................. 3-2
2017 OPSP Update Development Assumptions ..................................................................... 3-2
Unchanged Elements of the 2011 OPSP ................................................................................ 3-6
2017 OPSP Update Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3-7
Intended Uses of this SEIR .............................................................................................................. 3-8
Chapter 4: Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1
Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 4-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 4-9
Scenic Vista ............................................................................................................................... 4-9
Scenic Highways ....................................................................................................................... 4-9
Visual Character ........................................................................................................................ 4-9
Light and Glare ........................................................................................................................ 4-10
Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-10
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE ii 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Chapter 5: Agricultural, Forest and Mineral Resources .............................................................. 5-1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1
Agricultural and Forest Resources ................................................................................................... 5-1
Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
Chapter 6: Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6-1
Air Quality Setting ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 6-2
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 6-2
Clean Air Plan Consistency ...................................................................................................... 6-3
Operational Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) .................. 6-4
Operational Odors ..................................................................................................................... 6-6
Construction-Related Impacts ................................................................................................... 6-6
Operational Related Impacts ................................................................................................... 6-10
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts ............................................................................................. 6-13
Chapter 7: Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 7-1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7-1
Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 7-1
Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 7-6
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 7-6
Habitat Modification ................................................................................................................. 7-7
Disturbance or Loss of Special-Status Species ......................................................................... 7-8
Trees Protected by the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance ....................................................... 7-10
Impacts of In-Water Construction ........................................................................................... 7-11
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan ................................... 7-11
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts ............................................................................. 7-11
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 8-1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8-1
Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 8-1
Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 8-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 8-2
Disturbance of Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 8-2
Chapter 9: Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 9-1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 9-1
Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 9-1
Geologic Setting and Seismicity ...................................................................................................... 9-2
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 9-2
Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................................... 9-3
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking ........................................................................... 9-3
Seismically Induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Ground Surface
Settlement .................................................................................................................................. 9-3
Variable Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................ 9-4
Landfill Gas at Building-Soil Interface ..................................................................................... 9-4
Settlement of Landfill Materials and Bay Mud ......................................................................... 9-4
Underground Utilities in Landfill Areas ................................................................................... 9-4
Soil Erosion ............................................................................................................................... 9-4
Expansive Soils ......................................................................................................................... 9-4
Landslides ................................................................................................................................. 9-4
CONTENTS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE iii
Volcanic Hazards ....................................................................................................................... 9-4
Septic Systems ........................................................................................................................... 9-5
Unique Geological Features ...................................................................................................... 9-5
Wave Sustainability of Bayside Open Space ............................................................................. 9-5
Cumulative Geological Resources Impacts ............................................................................... 9-5
Chapter 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 10-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10-1
Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 10-1
Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................................... 10-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 10-4
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 10-4
Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans ............................................................... 10-7
Chapter 11: Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 11-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11-1
Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................................... 11-1
Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 11-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 11-1
Hazardous Materials Use, Transport ....................................................................................... 11-2
Accidental Hazardous Materials Release ................................................................................ 11-3
Hazardous Materials Near Schools .......................................................................................... 11-3
Hazardous Materials Sites ....................................................................................................... 11-4
Airport Land Use Plan ............................................................................................................. 11-4
Adopted Emergency Response Plan ........................................................................................ 11-4
Wildland Fires ......................................................................................................................... 11-4
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts .......................................................... 11-5
Chapter 12: Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 12-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 12-1
Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 12-1
Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................................... 12-2
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 12-2
Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements .................................................. 12-3
Groundwater Depletion/ Recharge .......................................................................................... 12-3
Increased Erosion or Siltation to Receiving Waters ................................................................ 12-3
Changes in Stormwater Runoff ............................................................................................... 12-4
Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality ..................................................................... 12-4
Structures Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area ................................................................... 12-4
Flooding from Levee or Dam Failure or Sea Level Rise ......................................................... 12-4
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow ........................................................................... 12-4
Cumulative Hydrology Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 12-4
Chapter 13: Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 13-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 13-1
Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 13-1
Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................................... 13-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 13-15
Dividing Established Community .......................................................................................... 13-15
Conflict with Plans and Policies ............................................................................................ 13-16
Conflict with Conservation Plan ............................................................................................ 13-16
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE iv 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Chapter 14: Noise ............................................................................................................................ 14-1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 14-1
Noise Setting ................................................................................................................................. 14-1
Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 14-6
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 14-6
Appropriateness of Noise Levels for Proposed Uses .............................................................. 14-7
Permanent Noise Level Increases ........................................................................................... 14-8
Cumulative Noise Level Increases .......................................................................................... 14-8
Vibration ................................................................................................................................. 14-8
Construction Noise .................................................................................................................. 14-9
Aircraft Noise ........................................................................................................................ 14-10
Chapter 15: Population, Public Services and Recreation ............................................................ 15-1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 15-1
Population/Housing ....................................................................................................................... 15-1
Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 15-1
Population/Housing Impact Analysis ...................................................................................... 15-2
Public Services and Recreation ..................................................................................................... 15-3
Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 15-3
Public Services and Recreation Impact Analysis .................................................................... 15-5
Chapter 16: Transportation and Circulation ............................................................................... 16-1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 16-1
Setting ............................................................................................................................................ 16-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 16-28
Increased Vehicle Trips ......................................................................................................... 16-29
Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................................................................. 16-29
Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................... 16-30
Shuttle Service Facilities ....................................................................................................... 16-31
Internal Circulation ............................................................................................................... 16-31
Existing (2016) with OPSP Intersection Operation .............................................................. 16-31
Existing (2016) with OPSP Vehicle Queuing ....................................................................... 16-33
Existing (2016) with OPSP Freeway Mainline Operation .................................................... 16-35
Existing (2016) with OPSP U.S. 101 Off-Ramp Operation .................................................. 16-35
Existing (2016) with OPSP U.S. 101 On-Ramp Operation .................................................. 16-35
Year 2040 with OPSP Intersection Operation ....................................................................... 16-36
Year 2040 with OPSP Vehicle Queuing ............................................................................... 16-41
Year 2040 with OPSP Freeway Mainline and On/Off-Ramp Operation .............................. 16-47
Chapter 17: Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 17-1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 17-1
Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 17-1
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 17-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 17-4
Water Supplies and System ..................................................................................................... 17-5
Wastewater .............................................................................................................................. 17-6
Increase in Stormwater Flows ................................................................................................. 17-7
Landfill Capacity ..................................................................................................................... 17-7
Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 17-8
Cumulative Utilities Impacts ................................................................................................... 17-8
CONTENTS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE v
Chapter 18: Other CEQA Considerations .................................................................................... 18-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 18-1
Significant Irreversible Modifications in the Environment ............................................................ 18-1
Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations .......................................... 18-1
Irreversible Changes From Environmental Actions ................................................................ 18-1
Growth Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................................... 18-2
Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 18-2
Chapter 19: Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 19-1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 19-1
2017 OPSP Update Objectives ...................................................................................................... 19-1
2017 OPSP Update Impacts ........................................................................................................... 19-2
Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 19-3
Selection of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 19-3
Update Alternative A: No Project/2011 OPSP Alternative ..................................................... 19-4
Update Alternative B: Reduced Intensity (23% Reduction) Alternative ................................. 19-5
Update Alternative C: Reduced Intensity (35% Reduction) Alternative ................................. 19-7
Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................................................... 19-9
Chapter 20: References ................................................................................................................... 20-1
Report Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 20-1
References ...................................................................................................................................... 20-2
Appendices
For hard copies of this document, all appendices are included on CD affixed to the back
cover.
Appendix A – 2017 OPSP Update
Appendix B – 2011 Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project EIR
Appendix C – Notice Of Preparation (NOP) And Comments
Appendix D – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Health Risk Technical Report
Appendix E – Biological Resources Report
Appendix F – Cultural Resources Records Searches and Tribal Contact
Appendix G – Updated Assessment of Geology, Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology; Flood Hazard Update
Appendix H – Environmental Noise Technical Report
Appendix I – Municipal Services Assessment
Appendix J – Traffic, Supporting Tables and Figures
Appendix K – Water Supply Assessment
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE vi 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Figures
3.1: OPSP location including 2017 OPSP Update area (Phases II, III, and IV) ......................... 3-11
3.2: Existing Uses in the OPSP area ........................................................................................... 3-12
3.3: OPSP Development Plan Including 2017 OPSP Update ..................................................... 3-13
3.4: OPSP Development Plan Including 2017 OPSP Update ..................................................... 3-14
3.5: Representative OPSP Elevations, Marina North Condominiums ........................................ 3-15
3.6: Representative OPSP Elevations, Park View Apartments ................................................... 3-16
3.7: OPSP Circulation ................................................................................................................. 3-17
4.1: Aerial Rendering, facing generally north ............................................................................... 4-3
4.2: Aerial Rendering, facing generally east ................................................................................. 4-4
4.3: Aerial Rendering, facing generally south .............................................................................. 4-5
4.4: Rendering, Park View Apartments (Phase III), facing generally northwest .......................... 4-6
4.5: Rendering, Marina North Condominiums (Phase III), facing generally northwest ............... 4-7
7.1: Habitat Map ........................................................................................................................... 7-3
16.1: Study Intersections and Intersection Control ....................................................................... 16-3
Tables
2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 2-7
3.1: Comparison of Development Assumptions in the OPSP Update Area .................................. 3-3
3.2: Development Summary – Phases III and IV .......................................................................... 3-4
6.1: 2017 OPSP Update Area Net Operational Emissions .......................................................... 6-11
7.1: Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the 2017 OPSP Update Area ............................... 7-2
10.1: 2017 OPSP Update Area GHG Emissions ........................................................................... 10-6
14.1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms in this Report ................................................................... 14-2
14.2: Typical Noise Levels in the Environment............................................................................ 14-3
14.3: Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings for Continuous Vibration Levels ................. 14-4
16.1: Trip Generation and Comparison ......................................................................................... 16-7
16.2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ................................................................................... 16-9
16.3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ............................................................................. 16-10
16.4: Intersection Level of Service – Existing With and Without OPSP Traffic ........................ 16-11
16.5: 95th Percentile Queues - Existing (2016) Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges
Potentially Impacted by the OPSP ..................................................................................... 16-13
16.6: Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2016 Without and With OPSP ....................... 16-15
16.7: Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes at Diverge From Freeway Mainline – Existing (2016)
and Year 2040 With and Without OPSP Traffic – AM and PM Peak Hours .................... 16-16
16.8: On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes - Existing (2016) and Year 2040 With and Without
OPSP Traffic – AM and PM Peak Hours .......................................................................... 16-17
16.9: Development Expected in East of 101 Area by 2040 (including OPSP and existing) ....... 16-22
16.10: Intersection Level of Service – Year 2040 With and Without OPSP Traffic .................... 16-25
16.11: 95th Percentile Queues - Year 2040 Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges With
and Without OPSP Traffic ................................................................................................. 16-26
16.12: Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2040 Without and With OPSP ....................... 16-27
19.1: Summary Comparison of Impacts, 2017 OPSP Update and Alternatives ......................... 19-11
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 1-1
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBSEQUENT EIR
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) is prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated
with the implementation of the Oyster Point Specific Plan Update/General Plan Amendment and Details
for Phases II, III and IV (“2017 OPSP Update”) (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022070). The 2017
OPSP Update is included as Appendix A. Areas within the OPSP that are outside of Phases II, III, and IV
(the 2017 OPSP Update area), are unaffected by the update and remain as proposed under the 2011 OPSP
and analyzed in the 2011 EIR. This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public
Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Section 15000, et seq.).
The purpose of an EIR is to disclose information to the public and to decision makers about the potential
environmental effects of a proposed project. An EIR does not recommend either approval or denial of a
proposed project; rather, it is intended to provide a source of independent and impartial analysis of the
foreseeable environmental impacts of a proposed course of action. This Draft SEIR describes the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update, analyzes its environmental effects and how those have or have not changed
from that in the 2011 EIR, and discusses reasonable alternatives that would avoid, reduce, or minimize
environmental impacts.
The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency for the 2017 OPSP Update and will consider the
information presented in this document in making an informed decision regarding the approval,
conditions of approval, or denial of the 2017 OPSP Update.
PREVIOUS ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUENT EIR
Summary of Previous Analysis
The 2011 OPSP was originally approved in 2011, together with amendments to the South San Francisco
General Plan and the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.230), and the related EIR was
certified. The 2011 OPSP included replacing the existing 403,212 square feet of light industrial/office
space known as the Oyster Point Business Park with an up to 2,300,000 square foot office/research and
development (R&D) development, improvements to the site circulation, utilities, and the landfill cap,
provision of a flexible use recreation area and bay-front open space, and replacement of uses in the Oyster
Point Marina area, potentially including one or two hotels with an aggregate of up to 350 rooms.
The EIR for the 2011 OPSP (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022070) is incorporated by reference and
is included as Appendix B to this document.
Summary of Changes Proposed in the Current Update
As is described in more detail in Chapter 3: Project Description, the 2017 OPSP Update proposes
changing the proposed uses for the northern-most portion of the OPSP area (known as Phases III and IV)
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 1-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
from office/R&D in the 2011 OPSP to a residential mixed use development with up to 1,191 units and
22,000 square feet of retail space.
The current proposal for Phase II development is generally consistent with the 2011 OPSP, in that
office/R&D development is proposed in that location within the total office/R&D square-footage and
maximum intensity anticipated in the 2011 OPSP. Phase II includes 1,070,000 square feet of office/R&D
development including approximately 28,000 square feet of flexible-use retail/amenity space. Phase II has
been included in the 2017 OPSP Update because, while generally consistent with the 2011 OPSP, the
square footage for this one phase is more than assumed for any one phase and because the building design
details and the location of parking have changed from what was previously assessed.
With the change in use on Phases III and IV and the proposed intensity of office/R&D on Phase II, the
total amount of office/R&D proposed in the OPSP area would be reduced by approximately 750,000
square feet. Additionally, while Phases II, III, and IV were addressed programmatically in the 2011 EIR,
these phases are analyzed on a project basis in this 2017 OPSP Update SEIR.
The currently proposed update would affect approximately 35 acres of the 85-acre OPSP area. The
proposed plans for Phase I office/R&D, bay-front open space, and replacement of uses in the Oyster Point
Marina area, potentially including one or two hotels with an aggregate of up to 350 rooms, are not
included as part of the proposed update. As noted above, there is also no change in the proposed type of
use for the Phase II area, which remains office/R&D. This SEIR analyzes the Phase II proposal with
respect to the project-level specifics of the proposed Phase II office/R&D development
Programmatic versus Project Level Analysis
Programmatic EIRs evaluate the effects of broad proposals or planning-level decisions and often include
multiple individual projects that will be implemented over a long timeframe. Programmatic EIRs are
usually prepared for general plans, specific plans, and master plans and provide the level of detail
necessary to choose among planning-level alternatives and develop broad mitigation strategies.
Programmatic EIRs generally assess plans that do not include specific details related to construction
activities and specifics of design and operational activities.
Per section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, projects proposed in an area covered by a programmatic EIR
– referred to as “Later Activities” – must be assessed to determine if additional environmental
documentation is required to address the specifics of those project-level proposals. A Later Activity could
be determined to have been adequately addressed in the programmatic EIR or a subsequent CEQA
document can be prepared to address the project-level details that have been subsequently proposed.
The 2011 OPSP, being a specific plan, was analyzed in the 2011 EIR, which assessed the entire OPSP on
a programmatic level. The 2011 EIR additionally analyzed the Phase I development on a project level, as
project-level details were proposed for that phase at the time.
As detailed in Chapter 3: Project Description, project-level details are available for the 2017 OPSP
Update area at this time, so the 2017 OPSP Update is analyzed on a project level in this Subsequent EIR.
Decision to Prepare an SEIR
In discussing Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, CEQA Guidelines §15162 provides that:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR
shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 1-3
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative. …
The City considers the change of use in Phases III and IV to residential as a substantial change in the
project and determined that a SEIR should be prepared to assess the potential for changed impacts under
the 2017 OPSP Update. While consistent with the office/R&D use proposed in the 2011 OPSP, Phase II
has also been included in the 2017 OPSP Update area to address project-specific details including the
specific square footage at that location and details of building design and the location of parking.
No Initial Study was prepared. Rather the SEIR will analyze all topic areas in the same order as the EIR
for the 2011 OPSP, as described below.
SUBSEQUENT EIR ORGANIZATION AND ANALYSIS
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This Draft SEIR will include the same chapters as the Draft EIR for the 2011 OPSP.
An Executive Summary follows this introduction as Chapter 2. This summary presents an overview of the
project and the potentially significant environmental impacts which may be associated with the project,
including a listing of recommended mitigation measures and a discussion of how impacts have changed
with the 2017 OPSP Update.
The Draft SEIR presents a description of the project in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 through 18 present
environmental analysis of the 2017 OPSP Update, focusing on the following issues:
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 1-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
4. Aesthetics
5. Agricultural, Forest and Mineral Resources
6. Air Quality
7. Biological Resources
8. Cultural Resources
9. Geology and Soils
10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
12. Hydrology and Water Quality
13. Land Use and Planning
14. Noise
15. Population, Public Services and Recreation
16. Traffic/Transportation
17. Utilities/Service Systems
Chapter 18 presents Other CEQA Considerations, including a discussion of significant and irreversible
modifications in the environment, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts.
Chapter 19 presents an evaluation of the environmental effects which may be associated with the
proposed project and the alternatives evaluated.
Chapter 20 lists the persons who prepared the Draft SEIR, identifies those persons and organizations
contacted during the preparation of the document, and lists the reference materials used.
FOCUS OF SEIR ANALYSIS
The analysis in this SEIR focuses on the changes to the 2011 OPSP proposed with the current 2017 OPSP
Update and makes impact conclusions for the 2017 OPSP Update. This approach is taken because CEQA
review has already occurred in the prior EIR for the 2011 OPSP, including identification of environmental
effects, feasible mitigation measures, and feasible alternatives, and Phase I is proceeding under prior
approvals and analysis. In addition to the changed project (office/R&D uses changed to residential in
Phases III and IV), this document also considers whether there are substantial changes in circumstances or
new information of substantial importance to take into account in each analysis chapter.
This SEIR is a subsequent document to the 2011 EIR and incorporates only the information necessary to
make the 2011 EIR adequate for the 2017 OPSP Update, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15162. Each environmental analysis section includes the additions/changes necessary to update the 2011
EIR accordingly.
FORMAT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Topic Chapters
Each environmental analysis chapter generally includes two main subsections:
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 1-5
• Existing Setting, including a discussion of whether updates to the 2011 EIR setting section
require updating for this analysis of the 2017 OPSP Update; and
• Impacts and Mitigation Measures, which identifies and discusses the potential impacts of the
2017 OPSP Update and cites applicable mitigation measures that would, to the extent possible,
reduce or eliminate adverse impacts identified in this chapter. A discussion of how each impact
and mitigation applies to the 2017 OPSP Update, does not apply, or has been revised from the
analysis and findings in the 2011 EIR is included within the Impacts and Mitigation Measures
sections of the environmental analysis chapters.
IMPACT STATEMENTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This SEIR identifies impacts and mitigation measures from the 2011 EIR that remain applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update or that require minor revisions to retain applicability and identifies new impacts
and/or mitigation measures associated with the 2017 OPSP Update.
Impact Classifications
The following level of significance classifications are used throughout the impact analysis in this SEIR,
and are consistent with those used in the 2011 EIR:
• No Impact (NI) – This designation is used when implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update would
result in no noticeable adverse effect on the environment.
• Less than Significant (LTS) – The impacts of the 2017 OPSP Update do not reach or exceed the
defined threshold/criteria of significance.
• Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures (LTS with MM) – The impact of the 2017 OPSP
Update is expected to reach or exceed the defined threshold/criteria of significance but would be
reduced below threshold levels to a less than significant level through implementation of
identified mitigation measures.
• Significant and Unavoidable (SU) – The impact of the 2017 OPSP Update reaches or exceeds the
defined threshold/criteria of significance. No feasible mitigation measure is available to reduce
the S impact to LTS. In these cases, feasible mitigation measures are identified to reduce the S
impact to the maximum feasible extent, and the significant impact is considered SU. Impacts are
also classified as SU if a feasible mitigation measure is identified that would reduce the impact to
LTS, but the approval and/or implementation of the mitigation measure is not within the City of
South San Francisco’s or the applicant’s sole control, in which case the analysis cannot presume
implementation of the mitigation measure and the resulting LTS impact.
Comparison of Impacts and Conclusions to the 2011 EIR
As previously stated above, this SEIR addresses the physical environmental effects of the 2017 OPSP
Update and presents the additions/changes necessary to update the 2011 EIR to address the “substantial
change” represented by the current project. For each environmental impact, the SEIR concludes one of
the following to describe how the impact, mitigation measures (if applicable), and impact conclusion
compares to those in the 2011 EIR. The following designations, along with the impact classification, are
included before impact statements in this SEIR.
• “Same Conclusion” – The 2017 OPSP Update would result in substantially the same significance
conclusion (significant or otherwise) as identified for the 2011 OPSP, with no changes needed for
applicability of the impact statement and mitigation measures, if any.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 1-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
• “Same Conclusion, Revised Statements”– The 2017 OPSP Update would result in substantially
the same impact (significant or otherwise) as identified for the 2011 OPSP, but wording of the
impact statement and/or mitigation measure(s) needs to be revised to reflect current requirements
and/or to revise applicability given the proposed change in use on a portion of the OPSP area.
• “More Significant Conclusion” – The 2017 OPSP Update would result in significance
conclusions that are materially greater in severity than previously identified. This could mean a
LTS conclusion where previously no impact was identified, a SU conclusion where the 2011 EIR
concluded LTS, or a substantially worsened SU conclusion. Impact statements and mitigation
measures would likely be revised or added in this situation.
• “Less Significant Conclusion” – The 2017 OPSP Update would result in significance conclusions
that are materially reduced in severity from those previously identified. This could mean a
conclusion of no impact where previously a LTS conclusion was made, a LTS conclusion where
the 2011 EIR concluded SU, or a substantially reduced SU conclusion. Impact statements and
mitigation measures would likely be revised or removed in this situation.
Chapter 2: Executive Summary of this SEIR includes a complete list of impacts and mitigation measures
from the 2011 EIR and this 2017 SEIR, including those that are eliminated, added, or revised by this
SEIR.
SEIR REVIEW PROCESS
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued in February 2017 to solicit comments from public agencies
and the public regarding the scope of the environmental evaluation for the 2017 OPSP Update. The NOP
and all written responses are presented in Appendix C. The responses were taken into consideration
during the preparation of the Draft SEIR.
This Draft SEIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies, and interested citizens to
evaluate the environmental consequences associated with the proposed project. The City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency, will consider the information contained in the SEIR prior to making a decision
on the project. As required under CEQA, the City must also respond to each significant effect identified
in the SEIR by making findings and if necessary, by making a statement of overriding considerations for
significant and unavoidable effects (if any) before approving the project. In accordance with California
law, the SEIR on the project must be certified before any action on the project can be taken. SEIR
certification does not constitute project approval.
During the review period for this Draft SEIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer
their comments on its evaluation of project impacts and alternatives. The comments received during this
public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these comments in a Final
SEIR. Together, the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR will constitute the SEIR for the project. The City of
South San Francisco will review the SEIR documents at a noticed public meeting and will consider
whether or not to certify the SEIR and approve the project.
In reviewing the Draft SEIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and
analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with the 2017 OPSP Update (project-level
impacts of Phases II, III and IV of the OPSP area only). Readers are also encouraged to review and
comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this project might be avoided or mitigated.
Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or new or modified
mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental
impacts. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit
data or references in support of their comments.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 1-7
This Draft SEIR will be circulated for a minimum forty-five (45) day public review period. During that
public review period, comments should be submitted in writing to:
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
650-877-8535
billy.gross@ssf.net
After reviewing the SEIR and following action to certify it as adequate and complete, the City of South
San Francisco will be in a position to approve, revise or reject the 2017 OPSP Update as currently
proposed. This determination will be based upon information presented regarding the entirety of the 2017
OPSP Update, its impacts and probable consequences, and the possible alternatives and mitigation
measures available.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 1-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-1
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
This SEIR analyzes the potential for environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the 2017
OPSP Update to the 2011 OPSP. The 2017 OPSP Update proposes residential use, instead of
office/R&D, in the Phase III and IV areas of the OPSP and also provides project-level detail for design
and square footage of office/R&D in Phase II.
The applicant is Oyster Point Development, LLC. The Lead Agency is the City of South San Francisco.
The applicant is seeking amendments of the City’s General Plan, OPSP, and Zoning Ordinance, as well
as phase-specific entitlements that will enable development of the 2017 OPSP Update, including but
not limited to approval of subdivision or parcel maps, Precise Plan(s), design review, Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and Development Agreement(s).
The 2017 OPSP Update area is a portion of the larger OPSP area. The approximately 85-acre OPSP site
is located about 3/4 of a mile east of U.S. 101, at the eastern end (Bay side) of Oyster Point and Marina
Boulevards in the “East of 101” planning area. The currently proposed 2017 OPSP Update
encompasses the northern approximately 35 acres of the 85-acre OPSP area, including the areas
identified in the 2011 EIR as Phases II, III, and IV. The 2017 OPSP Update area is approximately the
same as the existing development known as the Oyster Point Business Park along with surrounding
shoreline and roadways. The plan for the remainder of the OPSP area remains unchanged under the
2017 OPSP Update.
The 2011 OPSP originally envisioned a total of 1,750,000 square feet of private office/R&D
development across Phases II, III, and IV (the area subject to the 2017 OPSP Update), with
approximately 500,000 to 700,000 square feet of development in each phase.
The 2017 OPSP Update proposal for Phase II development does not change the plan for office/R&D
development in that location. However, the amount of office/R&D proposed in that location is higher
than previously assumed at 1,070,000 square feet including approximately 28,000 square feet of
flexible-use retail/amenity, and site design specifics including parking and circulation elements have
been revised. The 2011 OPSP allows for such adjustment in phase square footage.
The 2017 OPSP Update for Phases III and IV consists of up to 1,191 residential units and 22,000
square feet of flexible use retail and/or amenity space, rather than the office/R&D uses contemplated in
the 2011 OPSP for those phases.
2017 OPSP UPDATE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The analyses in Chapters 4 through 18 of this document provide a description of the existing setting,
identify potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update,
and identify mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a
result of 2017 OPSP Update implementation. Table 2.1 at the end of this chapter lists a summary
statement of each potentially significant impact and corresponding mitigation measure(s), as well as the
resulting level of significance.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Significant environmental impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures or alternatives
(where feasible) to reduce those impacts, or a finding by the Lead Agency that possible mitigation
measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of the significant impacts, feasible mitigation
measures either have not been identified, have uncertain feasibility, or may not be effective in reducing
the impacts to a less than significant level. These impacts are designated as significant and
unavoidable, as follows:
Noise: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not change conclusions related
to construction noise in the 2011 EIR. Noise generated by construction on the site would
temporarily though substantially increase noise levels at existing live-aboard boats in the vicinity of
the site as well as at earlier phases of proposed new residential units. As under the 2011 OPSP, this
impact would be partially reduced through implementation of construction noise control measures
(Noise-5), but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended
period of time that adjacent receivers could be exposed to construction noise though the noise
increases would be both episodic and temporary.
Traffic: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would result in almost the same daily
and 2-way peak hour traffic as under the 2011 OPSP. However, because the directionality of traffic
would change (with the 2011 OPSP generally following the employment base of the East of 101
area with inbound trips in the AM peak hour as employees arrive for work and outbound trips in
the PM peak hour as employees leave the area to go home whereas the 2017 OPSP Update
residential uses generally following the reverse pattern), specifics of traffic impacts between the
2011 OPSP and the 2017 OPSP Update have been revised, with some impacts being more
significant under the 2011 OPSP and other impacts being more significant under the 2017 OPSP
Update. While the impacts between both are similar, it can be stated that changing some traffic to a
different directionality than that predominant in the area would generally be considered beneficial
from a traffic perspective.
With updated modeling for this SEIR, including both increases in background traffic and the
proposed changes under the 2017 OPSP Update, there have been revisions to the specifics of which
impacts would be significant and which would not have feasible mitigation. Some significant and
unavoidable impacts that had previously been identified under the 2011 EIR were found to be less
than significant under the new modeling or reduced to that level through mitigation including AM
peak hour impacts at off-ramps and some PM peak hour impacts at on-ramps. Significant and
unavoidable impacts under the 2011 EIR that remain with the 2017 OPSP Update include
intersection level of service impacts, intersection queuing impacts, cumulative PM peak hour on-
ramp impacts, and freeway mainline impacts (Traf-13, Traf-16, Traf-17, Traf-18, Traf-22, Traf-
23), and one intersection level of service impact that had not been identified under the 2011 EIR
(Traf-14), though the specifics of the impacts have been revised due to changed background
conditions and trips from the OPSP.
IMPACTS REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT THROUGH MITIGATION
The following potentially significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with
implementation of mitigation measures:
Aesthetics: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not change conclusions
related to aesthetics in the 2011 EIR.
While the proposed massing and height of buildings is revised from that in the 2011 OPSP, these
changes would not result in substantial changes to the impacts, mitigation measures, or conclusions
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-3
in the 2011 EIR. As under the 2011 EIR, a lighting plan would minimize light pollution (Vis-2a)
and choice of building materials would reduce glare (Vis-2b) to less than significant levels.
Air Quality: While the change in use proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not
substantially change emissions from the site (which are driven largely by daily traffic volumes,
which remain the same), regional plans, modeling methodologies, and emissions modeling have
been updated, resulting in revised impacts, mitigation measures and conclusions, including that the
development in the OPSP is consistent with the current Clean Air Plan (where it wasn’t with the
previous Clean Air Plan) (Air-1), and that development under the 2017 OPSP Update would
require operational emissions offsets or restrictions of type of paint used at the site (imposed either
directly on occupants or by regional regulations) to reduce the impact to less than significant levels
(Air-5). While this impact was not identified under previous modeling methodologies, the 2017
OPSP Update would have lower emissions than the 2011 OPSP.
The 2017 OPSP Update would add residents to the site, which are sensitive receptors in relation to
emissions and would be closer to some existing and increased emissions sources than existing live-
aboard boats previously assessed. A health risk assessment was completed and determined that
operational risks would be below significance thresholds in the 2017 OPSP Update area (Air-2b) as
would construction-period risks with identified additional construction-period emissions controls
(Air-4).
Biological Resources: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not change
conclusions related to biological resources.
The 2017 OPSP Update would have no additional biological impacts and no biological impacts that
would be more significant than identified the 2011 EIR. Some of the biological impacts identified
in the 2011 EIR would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update because the 2017 OPSP Update
area either does not include the impacted habitat or species or the 2017 OPSP Update development
avoids disturbance of the impacted habitat or species.
As under the 2011 EIR, the 2017 OPSP Update would reduce all significant biological impacts to
less than significant levels though mitigation that would avoid shoreline wetland or aquatic habitats
(Bio-2b), minimize potential impacts from construction-period and operational run-off to adjacent
aquatic habitats (Bio-3a, Bio-3b, and Bio-4), avoid construction-period disturbance of nesting birds
(Bio-6), and design buildings to minimize potential for bird strikes (Bio-10a and Bio-10b).
Cultural Resources: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not change
conclusions related to cultural resources.
As under the 2011 EIR, appropriate handling in the event of a discovery would apply including
revisions to include tribal resources in addition to other cultural resources (Culture-1a, Culture-1b).
Geology and Soils: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not change
conclusions related to geology and soils as the characteristic of underlying soils and geology has
not changed.
The 2017 OPSP Update would have no additional geology and soils impacts and no geology and
soils impacts that would be more significant than identified the 2011 EIR. Some of the geology and
soils impacts identified in the 2011 EIR would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update because
the 2017 OPSP Update area does not include development on a landfill or development of the
beach park.
As under the 2011 EIR, the 2017 OPSP Update would reduce all significant geology and soils
impacts to less than significant levels though mitigation that would minimize the potential for soil
erosion (Geo-14), and ensure appropriate design and construction for development in a seismically
active region (Geo-2a through Geo-4) and on a site that may require deep foundations (Geo-5a
through Geo-6) and control measures for potential migration of landfill gas (Geo-7).
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: The change in use proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update
would result in similar overall emission of GHGs though higher efficiency per service population
than under the 2011 OPSP. Additionally, using updated traffic modeling and emissions modeling,
GHG emissions would be below significance levels for both the 2017 OPSP Update and the 2011
OPSP – whereas the 2011 EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact.
Hazardous Materials: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not change
conclusions related to hazardous materials. The 2017 OPSP Update would have no additional
hazardous materials impacts and no hazardous materials impacts that would be more significant
than identified the 2011 EIR. Some of the hazardous materials impacts identified in the 2011 EIR
would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update because the 2017 OPSP Update does not include
development on a landfill.
As under the 2011 EIR, the 2017 OPSP Update would reduce all significant hazardous materials
impacts to less than significant levels through mitigation that would ensure compliance with
existing regulations, plans and programs (Haz-1a through Haz-1e and Haz-5) and prevent release
of potentially hazardous building materials during demolition (Haz-3).
Hydrology and Water Quality: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not
change conclusions related to hydrology and water quality.
Some of the hydrology and water quality impacts identified in the 2011 EIR would not be
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update because the 2017 OPSP Update does not include development
on a landfill.
As under the 2011 EIR, the 2017 OPSP Update would reduce all significant hydrology and water
quality impacts to less than significant levels though mitigation that would require appropriate
storm water pollution prevention and erosion control (Hydro-2 and Hydro-3).
Noise: The change in use proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not substantially change
operational noise generated by OPSP development, which includes similar overall volumes of
traffic and related traffic noise.
However, the 2017 OPSP Update would add residents to the site, which are sensitive receptors in
relation to noise and would be closer to noise sources than existing live-aboard boats previously
assessed. Combined with the existing noise environment, the new sources of noise could result in
significant impacts on sensitive receptors (where impacts in the 2011 EIR were determined to be
less than significant) and would be reduced to less than significant levels through acoustical
assessment of air handling equipment (HVAC units and parking garage ventilation fans) (Noise-1).
Traffic: The changes proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would result in almost the same daily
and 2-way peak hour traffic as under the 2011 OPSP. However, because the directionality of traffic
would change (with the 2011 OPSP generally following the employment base of the East of 101
are with inbound trips in the AM peak hour as employees arrive for work and outbound trips in the
PM peak hour as employees leave the area to go home and the 2017 OPSP Update residential uses
generally following the reverse pattern), specifics of traffic impacts between the 2011 OPSP and
the 2017 OPSP Update have been revised, with some impacts being more significant under one and
other impacts being more significant under the other. While it is difficult to weight the relative
importance of each specific impact, it can be stated that changing some traffic to a different
directionality than that predominant in the area would generally be considered beneficial from a
traffic perspective.
As with the 2011 OPSP, mitigation measures have been identified and where feasible would reduce
many impacts to less than significant levels (Traf-2, Traf-3, Traf-7, Traf-8, Traf-9, Traf-13, Traf-
15, Traf-19, and Traf-20) and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan
would be required to reduce peak-hour trips (Traf-1).
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-5
Utilities: The change in use proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update results in some revisions to the
specifics of utility demand but would not substantially change impacts or conclusions related to
utilities. As under the 2011 OPSP, all utilities impacts under the 2017 OPSP Update would be
reduced to less than significant with improvements to the wastewater system (Util-2a and Util-2b).
For all other topics, there would be either no impacts or less than significant impacts only.
ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update were considered in detail in the alternatives
analysis presented in Chapter 19 of this document, as discussed below.
Alternative A: No Project/2011 OPSP. Update Alternative A is a “no project” alternative that
assumes the 2017 OPSP Update is not approved and therefore that the 2011 OPSP would remain in
place and development would occur according to the 2011 OPSP. The 2011 OPSP originally
envisioned a total of 1,750,000 square feet of private office/R&D development across Phases II, III,
and IV (the area subject to the 2017 OPSP Update), with approximately 500,000 to 700,000 square feet
of development in each phase. As with the 2017 OPSP Update, the remainder of the OPSP would
develop per the 2011 OPSP.
Update Alternative B: Reduced Intensity (23% Reduction) Alternative. Update Alternative B
would allow redevelopment of the same OPSP site but with a 23% reduction in residential and
office/R&D development compared with the 2017 OPSP Update. Under this alternative, 823,900
square feet of office/R&D and 917 residential units would be developed on Phases II, III, and IV. As
with the 2017 OPSP Update, the remainder of the OPSP would develop per the 2011 OPSP.
Update Alternative C: Reduced Intensity (35% Reduction) Alternative. Update Alternative C
would allow redevelopment of the same OPSP site but with a 35% reduction in residential and
office/R&D development compared with the 2017 OPSP Update. Under this alternative, 695,500
square feet of office/R&D and 774 residential units would be developed on Phases II, III, and IV. As
with the 2017 OPSP Update, the remainder of the OPSP would develop per the 2011 OPSP.
Alternatives Conclusion
Update Alternative A, the No Project/2011 OPSP Alternative, assumes the 2017 OPSP Update is not
approved and the 2011 OPSP is developed. With the same development footprint, similar construction
activities, and almost the same daily and 2-way peak traffic volumes as under the 2017 OPSP Update,
many of the impacts would be the same or similar under Update Alternative A. While Update
Alternative A would not introduce new residents to the area, emission and noise impacts to existing
sensitive receptors on live-aboard boats would still have substantially the same potential to occur.
While overall traffic volumes would be very similar, the directionality of peak traffic would increase
between the 2017 OPSP Update and Update Alternative A and the specifics of impacts would be
different with some impacts being more significant under one and other impacts being more significant
under the other. While it is difficult to weight the importance of each specific impact, it can be stated
that not changing some traffic to a different directionality than that predominant in the area would
generally be considered detrimental from a traffic perspective, and therefore Update Alternative A
would be considered to have marginally worse traffic impacts. Update Alternative A would have
substantially the same impacts, with marginally more severe traffic impacts than the 2017 OPSP
Update and therefore would not be the environmentally superior alternative.
The other two alternatives, Update Alternatives B and C, would reduce the amount of development on
the site, resulting in roughly 23% or 35% less development and proportionally less traffic and
emissions than would have been generated under the 2017 OPSP Update, respectively. Focusing on
impacts that cannot be reduced below significance levels through implementation of identified
mitigation, both Update Alternatives B and C would avoid one significant and unavoidable impact
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
related to the project contribution to impacted freeway mainline operation. Additionally, Update
Alternative C would also avoid one significant and unavoidable impact related to the project’s
contribution to impacted intersection operation at Forbes Boulevard and Gull Road. No other
significant and unavoidable impacts would be avoided or substantially changed by these alternatives.
Because Update Alternatives B and C both avoid at least one significant and unavoidable impact, these
alternatives would both be considered environmentally superior to the 2017 OPSP Update. With an
additional significant and unavoidable impact avoided, Update Alternative C would be environmentally
superior to both the 2017 OPSP Update and all other alternatives.
However, both of the significant and unavoidable impacts that are avoided by Update Alternatives B
and/or C occur at locations that would operate at unacceptable levels even without addition of any
traffic from the OPSP area. The reduction in traffic from the 2017 OPSP Update area would only
reduce the contribution from the OPSP area below the significance level of 1% for the freeway
mainline and 2% for the local intersection and would not result in the freeway mainline or that
intersection operating within acceptable levels.
While Update Alternatives B and C would meet all project objectives, many of these would be met to a
lesser degree than under the 2017 OPSP Update. This analysis considers Update Alternatives B and C
to be potentially feasible, though an economic feasibility study would need to be completed to confirm
economic feasibility.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-7
Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Aesthetics
Impact Vis-1: Scenic Vista. Many
prominent visual landmarks, such as
the San Bruno Mountains, the San
Francisco Bay, Sign Hill, and Wind
Harp, are visible from properties in
the East of 101 Area in South San
Francisco, including along the Bay
Trail. CEQA generally protects
against significant adverse impacts to
public views of such scenic vistas,
taking into consideration the
environmental context i.e., whether
the view is from a recreation area or
scenic expanse, as opposed from a
developed urban area. Here, the
Project will not significantly impact
public views of a scenic vista from a
recreation area or scenic expanse.
Further, given the OPSP’s urban
setting, a less-than-significant impact
would result on scenic vistas with no
mitigation warranted.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
Impact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The
many windows and outdoor lights
associated with increased
development intensity within the
OPSP area could potentially be
substantial sources of nighttime light
and daytime glare. This impact is
potentially significant.
Vis-2a: Lighting Plan. In order to
reduce sources of light and glare
created by lighting within the OPSP
area, the applicant shall specify
fixtures and lighting that maintains
appropriate levels of light at building
entries, walkways, courtyards,
parking lots and private roads at
night consistent with minimum levels
detailed in the City’s building codes.
These fixtures shall be designed to
eliminate spillover, high intensity,
and unshielded lighting, thereby
avoiding unnecessary light pollution.
Same Same LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Prior to issuance of building permits
for each phase of construction within
the OPSP, the applicant shall submit
a Lighting Design Plan for review
and approval by the City of South
San Francisco Planning Department.
The plan shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to the
following:
• The Lighting Design Plan shall
disclose all potential light sources
with the types of lighting and their
locations.
• Typical lighting shall include low
mounted, downward casting and
shielded lights that do not cause
spillover onto adjacent properties
and the utilization of motion
detection systems where
applicable.
• No flood lights shall be utilized.
• Lighting shall be limited to the
areas that would be in operation
during nighttime hours.
• Low intensity, indirect light
sources shall be encouraged.
• On-demand lighting systems shall
be encouraged.
• Mercury, sodium vapor, and
similar intense and bright lights
shall not be permitted except
where their need is specifically
approved and their source of light
is restricted.
• Generally, light fixtures shall not
be located at the periphery of the
property and should shut off
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-9
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
automatically when the use is not
operating. Security lighting visible
from the highway shall be motion-
sensor activated.
• Use “cut-off” fixtures designed to
prevent the upward cast of light
and avoid unnecessary light
pollution where appropriate.
• All lighting shall be installed in
accordance with the building codes
and the approved lighting plan
during construction.
Vis-2b: Glare Reduction. In
order to reduce sources of daytime
glare created by reflective building
materials, the applicant shall specify
exterior building materials for all
proposed structures constructed for
the Phase I Project and each
subsequent phase of development
under the OPSP that include the use
of textured or other non-reflective
exterior surfaces and non-reflective
glass types, including double glazed
and non-reflective vision glass. These
materials shall be chosen for their
non-reflective characteristics and
their ability to reduce daytime glare.
All exterior glass must meet the
specifications of all applicable codes
for non-reflective glass and would
therefore reduce daytime glare
emanating from the OPSP area.
Air Quality
Impact Air-1: Conflict with Clean Air
Plan Assumptions. Development
anticipated as a result of the OPSP
Mitigation Measure Traf-1 (included
with Impact Traf-1) would reduce
impact Air-1 by requiring
Revised Impact Air-1: Conflict with
the Clean Air Plan Assumptions.
Development anticipated as a result
Same SU
revised to
LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
would increase employment in an
area designed for employment centers
served by local and regional transit.
However, city-wide, vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) was projected to
increase at a faster rate than the city’s
population, which conflicts with CAP
assumptions. This is a significant
impact.
implementation of a TDM Plan to
reduce trips and VMT.
However, the TDM Plan would not
likely reduce the number of trips and
VMT to an amount that would be
assumed under the existing General
Plan designation for the site. Thus,
this impact would be considered
significant and unavoidable.
of the OPSP, including the 2017
OPSP Update, would increase
employment and residential uses in
an area designed for employment
centers served by local and regional
transit. However, city-wide, vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) was
projected to increase at a faster rate
than the city’s population, which
development could conflicts with
the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan
CAP assumptions if transportation
control measures are not
implemented with development
projects. This impact is a less-than-
significant impact with mitigation.
Impact Air-2: Possible Exposure of
Sensitive Receptors to TACs and
PM2.5. Development anticipated
under the OPSP may expose sensitive
receptors to TACs and PM2.5 through
development of new non-residential
development that may be sources of
TACs and PM2.5 and the potential for
development of ancillary uses, such
as daycare facilities, that would bring
sensitive users to the site. Such
exposure would represent a
potentially significant impact.
Air-2: Health Risk Assessment for
Proposed Sensitive Receptors. New
projects within the OPSP area that
would include sensitive receptors
(e.g., daycare centers) shall analyze
TAC and PM2.5 impacts and include
mitigation measures to reduce
exposures to less than significant
levels. The following measures could
be utilized in site planning and
building designs to reduce TAC
exposure:
• New development of sensitive
receptors located within OPSP area
shall require site specific analysis
to determine the level of TAC and
PM2.5 exposure. This analysis
shall be conducted following
procedures outlined by BAAQMD.
If the site specific analysis reveal
significant exposures, based on
BAAQMD guidance, then
additional measures listed below
shall be required.
New Impact Air-2b: 2017 OPSP
Update Operational Health Risks.
Increases in traffic and related
emissions, relative to existing
conditions, and emissions from
emergency generators would
contribute to health risks to
sensitive uses, including the
proposed on-site residents.
However, an analysis of health risk
determined the risk in the 2017
OPSP Update area would be below
applicable thresholds. Additionally,
new residents would not be located
in an area potentially impacted by
accidental release of acutely
hazardous air pollutants. The
impact related to the 2017 OPSP
Update operational health risks
would be less-than-significant.
No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-11
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
• Where exterior exposures are
significant, consider site planning
to buffer new sensitive receptors
from TAC emissions. Active site
uses and building air intakes shall
be situated away from TAC
sources
• Provide tiered plantings of
vegetation along the site
boundaries closest to TAC sources.
Preliminary laboratory studies
show that redwood and/or deodar
cedar trees can remove some of the
fine particulate matter emitted
from traffic under low wind
speeds. Low wind speeds typically
result in the highest particulate
matter concentrations.
Impact Air-3: Possible Exposure of
Sensitive Receptors to Operational
Odors. Development anticipated
under the OPSP may expose
sensitive receptors to odors through
development of new non-residential
development that may be sources of
odors near sensitive receptors. Such
exposure would represent a less-than-
significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Air-3: Possible
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to
Operational Odors. Development
anticipated under the OPSP may
expose sensitive receptors to odors
through development of new
residential and non-residential
development that may be sources of
odors near sensitive receptors. Such
exposure would represent a less-
than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. LTS
Impact Air-4: Construction Period
Dust, Emissions and Odors.
Construction of development projects
under the OPSP would result in
temporary emissions of dust, diesel
exhaust and odors that may result in
both nuisance and health impacts.
Without appropriate measures to
control these emissions, these impacts
would be considered significant.
Air-4a: Implement BAAQMD-
Recommended Measures to Control
Particulate Matter Emissions during
Construction. Measures to reduce
diesel particulate matter and PM10
from construction are recommended
to ensure that short-term health
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors
are avoided.
Dust (PM10) Control Measures:
Same Same Mitigation Measure Air-4a.
Mitigation Measure Air-4b is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update
area.
New Mitigation Measure Air-4c:
Construction Equipment Standards
and Construction Emissions
Minimization Plan. All off-road
construction equipment greater than
25 horsepower shall have engines
LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-12 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
• Water all active construction areas
at least twice daily and more often
during windy periods. Active areas
adjacent to residences should be
kept damp at all times.
• Cover all hauling trucks or
maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• Pave, apply water at least twice
daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging
areas.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers)
all paved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas and sweep
streets daily (with water sweepers)
if visible soil material is deposited
onto the adjacent roads.
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic)
soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas (i.e., previously-
graded areas that are inactive for
10 days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily,
or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
exposed stockpiles.
• Limit traffic speeds on any
unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed
areas as quickly as possible.
• Suspend construction activities that
cause visible dust plumes to extend
beyond the construction site.
• Post a publically visible sign(s)
with the telephone number and
person to contact at the Lead
that meet or exceed either U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) or California Air
Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final
off-road emission standards. If a
particular piece of off-road
equipment that meets these standards
is technically not feasible; the
equipment would not produce
desired emissions reduction due to
expected operating modes;
installation of the equipment would
create a safety hazard or impaired
visibility for the operator; or, there is
a compelling emergency need to use
off-road equipment that does not
meet these standards, the Contractor
shall use the next cleanest piece of
off-road equipment (i.e., Tier 3
Engine with Level 3 Verified Diesel
Emission Control Strategy
(VDECS), Tier 3 Engine with Level
2 VDECS, Tier 3 Engine with
alternative fuel), and the Contactor
shall develop a Construction
Emissions Minimization Plan
(CEMP) to describe the process used
to identify the next cleanest piece of
off-road equipment and the steps
that will be taken to reduce
emissions of criteria air pollutants to
the greatest extent practicable. The
CEMP shall be submitted the City’s
Planning Department for review and
approval prior to using the
equipment.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-13
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Agency regarding dust complaints.
This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours.
The Air District’s phone number
shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable
regulations.
Additional Measures to Reduce
Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5
and other construction emissions:
• The developer or contractor shall
provide a plan for approval by the
City or BAAQMD demonstrating
that the heavy-duty (>50
horsepower) off-road vehicles to
be used in the construction project,
including owned, leased and
subcontractor vehicles, will
achieve a project wide fleet-
average 20 percent NOx reduction
and 45 percent particulate
reduction compared to the most
recent CARB fleet average for the
year 2011
• Clear signage at all construction
sites will be posted indicating that
diesel equipment standing idle for
more than five minutes shall be
turned off. This would include
trucks waiting to deliver or receive
soil, aggregate, or other bulk
materials. Rotating drum concrete
trucks could keep their engines
running continuously as long as
they were onsite or adjacent to the
construction site.
• Opacity is an indicator of exhaust
particulate emissions from off-road
diesel powered equipment. Each
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-14 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
project shall ensure that emissions
from all construction diesel
powered equipment used on the
project site do not exceed 40
percent opacity for more than three
minutes in any one hour. Any
equipment found to exceed 40
percent opacity (or Ringelmann
2.0) shall be repaired immediately
• The contractor shall install
temporary electrical service
whenever possible to avoid the
need for independently powered
equipment (e.g. compressors).
• Properly tune and maintain
equipment for low emissions.
Air-4b: Implement Odor-Control
Measures During Refuse Relocation.
The following measures shall be
implemented during disturbance of
the landfill for refuse relocation:
• All areas shall remain under
foundation layer cover until
localized refuse relocation occurs.
• Limit the horizontal area of opened
foundation layer to at most an acre
of horizontal area at any one time
per area (an acre for the area being
excavated and an acre for the area
where trash is being relocated).
• Excavation and fill zones shall be
covered at the end of each day,
either with secured tarping or with
the foundation layer of soil.
• Additional measures for odor
control such as a foam cover or
scented misters in active areas
and/or covering of the materials in
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-15
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
the haul trucks may be considered
and implemented based upon
actual field conditions.
• Post a publically visible sign(s)
with a 24-hour contact number for
odor complaints. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible
to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Concerns/complaints related to
odor from the work will be
evaluated and protocol measures
will be amended as necessary.
• If 10 or more complaints are
logged with BAAQMD within a
90-day period, BAAQMD will
have regulatory authority that
supersedes this mitigation measure
consistent with BAAQMD
Regulation 7.
Impact Air-5: Operational Air Quality
Impacts. Operation under the OPSP
would result in permanent emissions
of ozone precursor pollutants and
particulate matter. These impacts
would be considered less-than-
significant.
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Air-5: Operational
Air Quality Impacts. Operation
under the OPSP would result in
permanent emissions of ozone
precursor pollutants and particulate
matter, including emissions of
reactive organic gasses (ROG)
above threshold levels, which
would. These impacts would be
considered a less-than-significant
impact.
New Mitigation Measure
Air-5: Emissions Offset Fee or
Ultra-Low VOC. One of the
following measures a), b) or c) shall
be implemented.
a) Prior to occupancy of the final
buildings at full buildout of the
Project, the Project Applicant or
its designee shall pay a one-time
mitigation offset fee to the
BAAQMD Bay Area Clean Air
Foundation (Foundation) in an
amount to be determined at the
time of the impact. This fee will
be determined by the Planning
Division in consultation with the
Project Applicant and BAAQMD
and based on the type of projects
available at the time of impact.
LTS
revised to
LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-16 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
This fee is intended to fund
emissions reduction projects to
achieve reductions of 0.9 tons per
year of ozone precursors, the
estimated tonnage of operational-
related ROG emissions offsets
required to reduce the ROG
average daily and annual
operational emissions below the
BAAQMD significance
thresholds of 54 pounds per day
and 10 tons per year, respectively
if full buildout of the OPSP
occurs. To qualify under this
mitigation measure, the specific
emissions reduction project must
result in emission reductions
within the San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin that are real,
surplus, quantifiable,
enforceable, and would not
otherwise be achieved through
compliance with existing
regulatory requirements or any
other legal requirement.
OR
b) Instead of payment of an offset
fee outlined above, the impact
could be reduced through a
reduction in area emissions of
ROG resulting from use of paint
at the site. Instead of payment of
an offset fee, the applicant could
alternatively require use of zero-
or ultra-low VOC paints with a
VOC content of less than 45
grams per liter at the site. This
requirement shall apply to all use
of paint in the 2017 OPSP
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-17
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Update area, including both
exterior paint and interior paint
for both areas maintained by
building management and areas
under private ownership or use. If
chosen instead of payment of an
offset fee outlined above, this
requirement shall be part of all
lease or property sale agreements
in the 2017 OPSP Update area
and shall be enforced through
building management and/or
home owners associations.
OR
c) If the State or BAAQMD enact
regulations that require zero- or
ultra-low VOC paints with a
VOC content of less than 45
grams per liter to be used
exclusively at the site by the time
the final phase of 2017 OPSP
Update area development is
operational, the mitigation offset
fee or additional lease or sale
agreement constraints outlined
above will not be required.
Biological Resources
Impact Bio-1: Loss of Common
Terrestrial Habitats. Development of
the OPSP would result in the
modification or loss of Developed and
Landscaped areas, California Annual
Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub,
Ornamental Woodland Habitats and
Non-Jurisdictional Armored Rock
Levee Slope Habitats. However, none
of these habitats represent particularly
sensitive, valuable (from the
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-18 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
perspective of providing important
wildlife habitat), or exemplary
occurrences of these habitat types.
Therefore, impacts to these habitats,
and the loss of potential nesting,
roosting, and foraging opportunities
associated with such habitats, are
considered a less-than-significant
impact.
Impact Bio-2: Disturbance or Loss of
Wetland or Aquatic Habitats.
Development of the OPSP would
result in the disturbance or loss of
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, Open
Water and Jurisdictional Armored
Rock Levee Slope Habitats. Due to
the ecological importance of wetland
and aquatic habitats, such impacts
would be potentially significant.
Bio-2a: Delineate Jurisdictional
Boundaries. Prior to construction of
any programmatic OPSP elements
that are expected to potentially have
direct impacts on USACE
jurisdictional habitats, a focused
delineation shall be performed to
determine the precise limits of
USACE jurisdiction at the site, and
USACE approval of the jurisdictional
boundaries will be obtained.
Bio- 2b: Impact
Avoidance/Minimization. Future
OPSP elements near the Bay
shoreline shall be designed with
consideration of the boundaries of
sensitive wetland and aquatic habitats
in order to avoid and minimize
impacts to these sensitive habitats to
the extent practicable while still
accomplishing OPSP objectives. For
example, building and trail
construction, landscaping activities,
and other terrestrial activities shall be
planned and designed to avoid
impacting the sensitive habitats near
the Bay shoreline to the extent
feasible. For activities that cannot
avoid impacting sensitive habitats
due to their water-related purpose or
location, such as construction or
Same Same Mitigation Measure Bio-2b.
Mitigation Measures Bio-2a, Bio-2c,
and Bio-2d are not applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-19
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
replacement of piers or docks in the
marina, the amount of new fill or the
footprint of new structures placed in
or on the water shall be limited to the
minimum necessary to achieve the
objectives of that component. The
City shall review plans for any
proposed activities that will result in
impacts to sensitive wetland and
aquatic habitats to ensure that
impacts have been avoided and
minimized to the extent feasible.
Bio-2c: Restoration of Temporarily
Impacted Wetland/Aquatic Habitats.
USACE-jurisdictional areas that are
temporarily impacted during
construction of programmatic
elements shall be restored to
preexisting contours and levels of
soils compaction following build-out.
The means by which such
temporarily impacted areas will be
restored shall be described in the
mitigation plan described in Measure
2d below.
Bio-2d: Compensation for
Permanently Impacted
Wetland/Aquatic Habitats.
Unavoidable permanent fill of all
habitats within USACE jurisdiction
shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1
(mitigation area: impact area) ratio
by creation or restoration of similar
habitat around San Francisco Bay.
Any aquatic, marsh, or mudflat
habitat areas experiencing a net
increase in shading as a result of
docks or other structures constructed
over or on the water shall require
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-20 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
compensatory mitigation at a 0.5:1
(mitigation area: impact area) ratio;
this ratio is less than the 1:1 required
for permanent filling of such habitats
because shaded areas are expected to
retain some ecological habitat value.
Mitigation could be achieved through
a combination of on-site restoration
or creation of wetlands or aquatic
habitats (including removal of on-site
fill or structures, resulting in a gain
of wetland or aquatic habitats); off-
site restoration/creation; funding of
off-site restoration/creation projects
implemented by others; and/or
mitigation credits purchased at
mitigation banks within the San
Francisco Bay Region. Because
impacts to aquatic habitats on-site
could also potentially impact special-
status fish and EFH (see Impacts to
Essential Fish Habitat and Special-
Status Fish below), all compensatory
mitigation for impacts to aquatic
habitat must also provide habitat for
green sturgeon, Central California
Coast steelhead, and longfin smelt
that is of a quality at least as high as
that impacted.
For funding of off-site improvements
or purchase of mitigation bank
credits, the OPSP Applicant shall
provide written evidence to the City
that either (a) compensation has been
established through the purchase of a
sufficient number of mitigation
credits in a mitigation bank to satisfy
the mitigation acreage requirements
of the OPSP activity, or (b) funds
sufficient for the restoration of the
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-21
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
mitigation acreage requirements of
the OPSP activity have been paid to
an entity implementing a project that
would create or restore habitats of the
type being impacted by the OPSP.
For areas to be restored to mitigate
for temporary or permanent impacts,
the OPSP Applicant shall prepare and
implement a mitigation plan. The
OPSP Applicant shall retain a
restoration ecologist or wetland
biologist to develop the mitigation
plan, and it shall contain the
following components (or as
otherwise modified by regulatory
agency permitting conditions):
1. Summary of habitat impacts and
proposed mitigation ratios, along
with a description of any other
mitigation strategies used to
achieve the overall mitigation
ratios, such as funding of off-site
improvements and/or purchase of
mitigation bank credits
2. Goal of the restoration to achieve
no net loss of habitat functions
and values
3. Location of mitigation site(s) and
description of existing site
conditions
4. Mitigation design:
• Existing and proposed site
hydrology
• Grading plan if appropriate,
including bank stabilization or
other site stabilization features
• Soil amendments and other site
preparation elements as
appropriate
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-22 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
• Planting plan
• Irrigation and maintenance plan
• Remedial measures/adaptive
management, etc.
5. Monitoring plan (including final
and performance criteria,
monitoring methods, data
analysis, reporting requirements,
monitoring schedule, etc.)
6. Contingency plan for mitigation
elements that do not meet
performance or final success
criteria.
Impact Bio-3: Construction-Period
Increases in Turbidity. Sediment may
wash from construction areas into
adjacent aquatic habitats, or soil
loosened by grading could slide
downslope into such areas. Increases
in turbidity resulting from
construction constitutes a potentially
significant impact to aquatic wildlife
species, including special-status fish
species such as steelhead and
sensitive native species such as the
Olympia oyster. Water quality
degradation could also negatively
impact eelgrass beds if they occur in
the OPSP area. Due to the ecological
importance of these aquatic habitats
and sensitive resources, such impacts
would be potentially significant.
Bio-3a: Incorporate Best
Management Practices for Water
Quality During Construction. The
Plan shall incorporate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for
water quality to minimize impacts in
the surrounding wetland
environment, sloughs and channels,
and the San Francisco Bay during
construction. These BMPs shall
include numerous practices that will
be outlined within the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
including, but not limited to, the
following mitigation measures:
1. No equipment will be operated in
live flow in any of the sloughs or
channels or ditches on or adjacent
to the site.
2. No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark,
slash, sawdust, cement, concrete,
washings, petroleum products or
other organic or earthen material
shall be allowed to enter into or
be placed where it may be washed
by rainfall or runoff into aquatic
Same Same LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-23
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
or wetland habitat.
3. Standard erosion control and
slope stabilization measures will
be required for work performed in
any area where erosion could lead
to sedimentation of a waterbody.
For example, silt fencing will be
installed just outside the limits of
grading and construction in any
areas where such activities will
occur upslope from, and within 50
ft of, any wetland, aquatic, or
marsh habitat. This silt fencing
will be inspected and maintained
regularly throughout the duration
of construction.
4. Machinery will be refueled at
least 50 ft from any aquatic
habitat, and a spill prevention and
response plan will be developed.
All workers will be informed of
the importance of preventing
spills and of the appropriate
measures to take should a spill
occur.
Bio-3b: Minimize Soil Disturbance
Adjacent to Wetland and Marsh
Habitat. To the extent feasible, soil
stockpiling, equipment staging,
construction access roads, and other
intensively soil-disturbing activities
shall not occur immediately adjacent
to any wetlands that are to be avoided
by the OPSP. The limits of the
construction area shall be clearly
demarcated with Environmentally
Sensitive Area fencing to avoid
inadvertent disturbance outside the
fence during construction activities.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-24 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Impact Bio-4: Operational
Stormwater Impacts on Wetlands and
a Tidal Channel. Installation of
stormwater outfalls from the
buildings to be constructed in the
southwestern part of the site shall
outfall into vegetated swales that are
to be constructed just upslope from
the wetlands and tidal channel that
form the southwestern boundary of
the site. If these swales are not
adequately constructed, there is some
potential for excessive erosion or the
release of untreated runoff into these
wetlands and tidal waters. Due to the
value of wetland habitats to the
ecology of the Bay’s aquatic habitats
and the value of these aquatic habitats
to a variety of fish, benthic
organisms, and other species,
degradation of water quality or
wetlands would be a potentially
significant impact.
Bio-4: Ensure Adequate Stormwater
Run-off Capacity. Increases in
stormwater run-off due to increased
hardscape shall be mitigated through
the construction and maintenance of
features designed to handle the
expected increases in flows and
provide adequate energy dissipation.
All such features, including outfalls,
shall be regularly maintained to
ensure continued function and
prevent failure following
construction.
Same Same LTS with MM
Impact Bio-5: Loss of Habitat for
Non-breeding Special-Status Wildlife
Species. Several terrestrial special-
status species may use the OPSP area
as transients or migrants, or may
occur in very low numbers, but are
not expected to breed at the site or to
be present in any numbers. These
species include the American
peregrine falcon, black skimmer,
harlequin duck, northern harrier,
Vaux’s swift, yellow warbler,
tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite
and loggerhead shrike. There would
be no substantial loss of foraging or
non-breeding habitat for any of these
species, as the OPSP footprint
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-25
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
primarily includes already developed
and/or heavily impacted areas.
Therefore, the impact on non-
Breeding Special-Status Wildlife
Species would be less-than-
significant.
Impact Bio-6: Disturbance of Special-
Status Nesting Birds. Construction-
related noise and activity could
disturb or displace special-status
breeding birds. The number of nesting
individuals that could be disturbed is
very small, and the OPSP’s impacts
would not substantially reduce
regional populations of special-status
bird species, and thus these impacts
do not meet the CEQA standard of
having a substantial adverse effect on
these species. However, the loss of
any active nests of protected birds
would be in violation of federal and
state laws, thus this impact would be
considered potentially significant.
Bio-6: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird
Survey. Pre-construction surveys for
nesting birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
and/or Fish and Game Code of
California within 100 feet of a
development site in the OPSP area
shall be conducted if construction
commences during the avian nesting
season, between February 1 and
August 31. The survey should be
undertaken no more than 15 days
prior to any site-disturbing activities,
including vegetation removal or
grading. If active nests are found, a
qualified biologist shall determine an
appropriate buffer in consideration of
species, stage of nesting, location of
the nest, and type of construction
activity. The buffers should be
maintained until after the nestlings
have fledged and left the nest.
Same Same LTS with MM
Impact Bio-7: Construction-Period
Disturbance of Burrowing Owls.
Burrowing owls could potentially
burrow in grassland habitats and/or
use crevices in shoreline riprap as
temporary refugia. Due to the
marginal nature of habitat on the site,
and the current lack of suitable
breeding sites in the form of ground
squirrel burrows, the OPSP will not
result in a significant loss of
burrowing owl habitat. Nevertheless,
Bio-7a: Pre-construction Burrowing
Owl Surveys. Pre-construction
surveys for burrowing owls shall be
completed in potential habitat in
conformance with the California
Burrowing Owl Consortium protocol,
no more than 30 days prior to the
start of construction. If no burrowing
owls are located during these
surveys, no additional action would
be warranted. However, if burrowing
owls are located on or immediately
Impact Bio-7 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Bio-7a, Bio-7b,
and Bio-7c are not applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update. The 2017 OPSP
Update area impact is LTS with no
mitigation warranted.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-26 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
any loss of burrowing owls or fertile
eggs, any activities resulting in nest
abandonment, or the destruction of
occupied burrowing owl burrows
would constitute a potentially
significant impact under CEQA due
to the regional rarity of the species
and declining nature of its
populations.
adjacent to the site, mitigation
measures Bio-7b and Bio-7c shall be
implemented.
Bio-7b: Buffer Zones. For burrowing
owls present during the non-breeding
season (generally 1 September to 31
January), a 150-ft buffer zone shall
be maintained around the occupied
burrow(s) if practicable. If such a
buffer is not practicable, then a buffer
adequate to avoid injury or mortality
of owls shall be maintained, or the
birds shall be evicted as described for
Mitigation Measures Bio-7c, below.
During the breeding season
(generally 1 February to 31 August),
a 250-ft buffer, within which no new
activity shall be permissible, shall be
maintained between OPSP activities
and occupied burrows. Owls present
on site after 1 February shall be
assumed to be nesting unless
evidence indicates otherwise. This
protected buffer area shall remain in
effect until 31 August, or based upon
monitoring evidence, until the young
owls are foraging independently or
the nest is no longer active.
Bio-7c: Passive Relocation. If
construction will directly impact
occupied burrows, eviction of owls
should occur outside the nesting
season to prevent injury or mortality
of individual owls. No burrowing
owls shall be evicted from burrows
during the nesting season (1 February
through 31 August) unless evidence
indicates that nesting is not actively
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-27
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
occurring (e.g., because the owls
have not yet begun nesting early in
the season, or because young have
already fledged late in the season).
Relocation of owls during the non-
breeding season shall be performed
by a qualified biologist using one-
way doors, which should be installed
in all burrows within the impact area
and left in place for at least two
nights. These one-way doors shall
then be removed and the burrows
backfilled immediately prior to the
initiation of grading.
Impact Bio-8: Increased Recreational
Disturbance on Wildlife. Recreational
demand in the Oyster Point area is
expected to increase with the
development of the OPSP and such
increased use could potentially
subject biological resources (both
within and outside the OPSP area,
such as waterbirds using the edge of
San Francisco Bay) to greater
disturbance by people walking and
biking. However, because there is
already a substantial amount of
human activity at Oyster Point, the
area is already largely habituated to
high levels of human activity.
Increased use of trails or other areas
that are already fairly heavily used by
people is thus not expected to reduce
the use of such areas by wildlife.
Therefore, an increase in recreational
users of the Bay Trail and other areas
adjacent to wildlife habitat resulting
from construction of the OPSP would
have a less-than-significant impact on
wildlife in these areas.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-28 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Impact Bio-9: Increased Lighting
Impacts on Wildlife. Lighting in and
adjacent to more natural areas on the
OPSP area, especially the shoreline
along San Francisco Bay, is expected
to increase as a result of the OPSP.
Artificial lighting has been
demonstrated to cause changes in the
physiology and behavior of certain
animals. However, the OPSP area is
already subjected to substantial
amounts of artificial night lighting,
including night lighting from roads,
parking lots, and buildings. As a
result, any wildlife currently using the
site is habituated to the lighting
present within this urban area. The
OPSP incorporates guidelines for the
design of lighting to minimize light
pollution in areas other than those
intended to be lit. Therefore, impacts
from increased lighting levels on
wildlife will be less-than-significant.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
Impact Bio-10: Increased Potential
for Bird Strikes. Relative to the height
of the existing structures, several of
the OPSP’s proposed buildings will
project higher, creating new,
somewhat larger obstacles along the
flight path of migrating and foraging
birds. Therefore, the OPSP could
result in the creation of a new strike
hazard for migrating. Although large-
scale injury or mortality of birds due
to collisions with buildings is not
anticipated, because of the potential
for such mortality to occur, the OPSP
is considered to have a potentially
significant impact to migratory birds.
Bio-10a: Lighting Measures to
Reduce Impacts to Birds. During
design of any building greater than
100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant
shall consult with a qualified
biologist experienced with bird
strikes and building/lighting design
issues to identify lighting-related
measures to minimize the effects of
the building’s lighting on birds. Such
measures, which may include the
following and/or other measures,
shall be incorporated into the
building’s design and operation.
• Use strobe or flashing lights in
place of continuously burning
lights for obstruction lighting. Use
Same Revised Bio-10a: Lighting Measures
to Reduce Impacts to Birds. During
design of any building greater than
100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant
shall consult with a qualified
biologist experienced with bird
strikes and building/lighting design
issues to identify lighting-related
measures to minimize the effects of
the building’s lighting on birds. Such
measures, which may include the
following and/or other measures,
shall be incorporated into the
building’s design and operation.
• Use strobe or flashing lights in
place of continuously burning
lights for obstruction lighting.
LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-29
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
flashing white lights rather than
continuous light, red light, or
rotating beams.
• Install shields onto light sources
not necessary for air traffic to
direct light towards the ground.
• Extinguish all exterior lighting
(i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter
spots) not required for public
safety.
• When interior or exterior lights
must be left on at night, the
operator of the buildings shall
examine and adopt alternatives to
bright, all-night, floor-wide
lighting, which may include:
• Installing motion-sensitive
lighting.
• Using desk lamps and task
lighting.
• Reprogramming timers.
• Use of lower-intensity lighting.
• Windows or window treatments
that reduce transmission of light
out of the building shall be
implemented to the extent feasible.
Bio-10b: Building Design Measures
to Minimize Bird Strike Risk. During
design of any building greater than
100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant
shall consult with a qualified
biologist experienced with bird
strikes and building/lighting design
issues to identify measures related to
the external appearance of the
building to minimize the risk of bird
Use flashing white lights rather
than continuous light, red light,
or rotating beams
• Install shields onto light sources
not necessary for air traffic to
direct light towards the ground.
• Extinguish all exterior lighting
(i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter
spots) not required for public
safety.
• When interior or exterior lights
must be left on at night, the
operator of the buildings shall
examine and adopt alternatives to
bright, all-night, floor-wide
lighting, which may include:
o Installing motion-sensitive
lighting.
o Using desk lamps and task
lighting.
o Reprogramming timers.
o Use of lower-intensity lighting.
• Windows or window treatments
that reduce transmission of light
out of the building shall be
implemented to the extent
feasible.
Revised Bio-10b: Building Design
Measures to Minimize Bird Strike
Risk. During design of any building
greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP
Applicant shall consult with a
qualified biologist experienced with
bird strikes and building/lighting
design issues to identify measures
related to the external appearance of
the building to minimize the risk of
bird strikes. Such measures, which
may include the following and/or
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-30 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
strikes. Such measures, which may
include the following and/or other
measures, shall be incorporated into
the building’s design.
• Use non-reflective tinted glass.
• Use window films to make
windows visible to birds from the
outside.
• Use external surfaces/designs that
“break up” reflective surfaces
rather than having large,
uninterrupted areas of surfaces that
reflect, and thus may not appear
noticeably different (to a bird)
from, the sky.
other measures, shall be
incorporated into the building’s
design.
• Minimize the extent of glazing.
• Use low-reflective glass.
• Use window films, mullions,
blinds, or other internal or
external features to “break up”
reflective surfaces rather than
having large, uninterrupted areas
of surfaces that reflect, and thus
may not appear noticeably
different (to a bird) from,
vegetation or the sky.
• Use non-reflective tinted glass.
• Use window films to make
windows visible to birds from the
outside.
• Use external surfaces/designs
that “break up” reflective
surfaces rather than having large,
uninterrupted areas of surfaces
that reflect, and thus may not
appear noticeably different (to a
bird) from, the sky.
Impact Bio-11: Protected Tree
Removal. One or more mature blue
gum trees within the ornamental
woodland habitat may satisfy size
requirements for a “protected tree”
under the City of South San
Francisco’s Tree Protection
Ordinance. Trees are considered
protected if they are 48 inches or
more at 54 inches above the natural
grade. These trees, while providing
some wildlife habitat, are non-native
invasive trees that severely degrade
natural habitats. Eucalyptus species
No mitigation warranted. Impact Bio-11 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Bio-11 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS
revised to
NI
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-31
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
outcompete native species and
produce leaf litter that reduces the
diversity and cover, and can alter fire
regimes within the associated
woodland understory. If any of these
trees are found to be of sufficient size
to be considered protected under the
City’s ordinance, a permit will be
required for their removal. However,
due to the low habitat functions and
values provided by these trees, their
loss, and the loss of potential nesting,
roosting, and foraging opportunities
associated with them, this is
considered a less-than-significant
impact.
Impact Bio-12: In-Water Construction
Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat.
Special-status fish species that occur
in the OPSP vicinity and could
potentially be impacted by in-water
construction activities are the
southern green sturgeon, the Central
California Coast steelhead, and the
longfin smelt. Habitat for occasional
dispersing individuals of all three
species is similarly located in open
waters and estuarine habitats of the
San Francisco Bay along the
boundaries of the OPSP area. This is
a potentially significant impact.
Bio-12: Measures to Reduce Impacts
on Essential Fish Habitat. The
following mitigation measures,
adapted from Amendment 11 of the
West Coast Groundfish Plan (PFMC
2006) and Appendix A of the Pacific
Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 2003),
shall be implemented during in-water
construction activities unless
modified by the federal permitting
agencies (NMFS or USACE).
Avoidance of Salmonid Migration
Periods. In-water work when juvenile
salmonids are moving through the
Bay on the way to the open ocean or
when groundfish and prey species
could be directly impacted shall be
avoided. Because steelhead are
potentially present, the allowed
dredge window for this area of the
San Francisco Bay is June 1 through
November 30. All in-water
construction shall occur during this
window. If completion of in-water
Impact Bio-12 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Bio-12 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
NI
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-32 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
work within this period is not
feasible due to scheduling issues,
new timing guidelines shall be
established and submitted to the
NMFS and CDFG for review and
approval.
Worker Training. Personnel involved
in in-water construction and
deconstruction activities shall be
trained by a qualified biologist in the
importance of the marine
environment to special-status fish,
and birds and the environmental
protection measures put in place to
prevent impacts to these species,
their habitats, and EFH. The training
shall include, at a minimum, the
following:
1. A review of the special-status fish
and sensitive habitats that could
be found in work areas
2. Measures to avoid and minimize
adverse effects to special-status
fish, birds, their habitats, and EFH
3. A review of all conditions and
requirements of environmental
permits, reports, and plans (i.e.,
USACE permits)
Avoidance of Areas of Wetland and
Aquatic Vegetation. All construction
equipment used in conjunction with
in-water work (pipelines, barges,
cranes, etc.) shall avoid wetlands,
marshes, and areas of sub-aquatic
vegetation (including eelgrass beds).
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a would
also reduce impact Bio-12 through
implementation of Best Management
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-33
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Practices for water quality during
construction.
Impact Bio-13: Percussive In-Water
Construction Noise and Special-
Status Fish. If in-water construction is
undertaken and includes
jackhammering, pile-driving or other
in-water percussive activities,
pressure waves could cause negative
behavioral, psychological and
physiological effects that could
disturb, injure or kill special-status
fish or marine mammals. Due to the
number of fish that could be present
near in-water construction areas, the
potential presence of special-status
fish, and the sensitivity of marine
mammals such as harbor seals and
California sea lions, such impacts are
potentially significant.
Bio-13a: Incorporation of Design
Considerations that Minimize the
Need for Percussive Construction
Techniques. If programmatic OPSP
elements after the Phase I Project
include in-water construction of
structures that require percussive
techniques, structure design shall
adhere to the following principles to
the greatest extent practicable:
1. Engineer structures to use fewer
or smaller piles, where feasible,
and preferably, solid piles
2. Design structures that can be
installed in a short period of time
(i.e., during periods of slack tide
when fish movements are lower).
3. The City, with consultation from a
qualified biologist who is familiar
with marine biology, shall review
the final plan design to ensure that
these design requirements have
been incorporated into the plan.
Bio-13b:Utilization of Construction
Tools and Techniques that Minimize
Percussive Noise. If programmatic
OPSP elements include construction
of structures that require percussive
techniques, construction activities
shall employ the following
techniques to the greatest extent
practicable.
1. Drive piles with a vibratory
device instead of an impact
hammer if feasible, and use a
cushioning block between the
Impact Bio-13 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Bio-13a and
Bio-13b are not applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
NI
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-34 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
hammer and the pile.
2. Restrict driving of steel piles to
the June 1 to November 30 work
window, or as otherwise
recommended by the NMFS
(driving of concrete piles would
not be subject to this condition).
3. If steel piles must be driven with
an impact hammer, an air curtain
shall be installed to disrupt sound
wave propagation, or the area
around the piles being driven shall
be dewatered using a coffer dam.
The goal of either measure is to
disrupt the sound wave as it
moves from water into air.
4. If an air curtain is used, a
qualified biologist shall monitor
pile driving to ensure that the air
curtain is functioning properly
and OPSP-generated sound waves
do not exceed the threshold of
180183-decibels generating 1
micropascal (as established by
NMFS guidelines the Fisheries
Hydroacoustic Working Group;
2008). This shall require
monitoring of in-water sound
waves during pile driving.
5. Use of fewer piles, or smaller
piles, or a different type of pile,
with hollow steel piles appearing
to create the most impact at a
given size
6. Driving piles when species of
concern are absent
7. Use of a vibratory hammer rather
than an impact hammer
8. Use of a cushioning block
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-35
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
between hammer and pile
9. Use of a confined or unconfined
air bubble curtain; and
10. Driving piles during periods of
reduced currents
Impact Bio-14: In-Water Construction
Disturbance of Olympia Oyster Beds.
There is a known population of
Olympia oysters at Oyster Point. In-
water construction activities,
including activities at the marina and
along the shoreline, could potentially
impact oysters through the removal of
substrate supporting oysters,
smothering of oyster beds with fill, or
degradation of water quality. Such
oysters, including their larvae,
provide food, refugia, and attachment
sites for a number of aquatic
organisms and filter nutrients and
pollutants from the water. As a result,
these oysters perform a valuable
function to the Bay ecosystem, and
impacts to oysters from in-water
construction activities are potentially
significant.
Bio-14a: Avoidance of Suitable
Oyster Habitat. To the greatest extent
practicable, OPSP activities shall
avoid removing or disturbing riprap
and other rocky substrates that serve
as suitable oyster habitat. If impacts
to oysters and their habitat are
unavoidable, measures Bio-14b and
Bio-14c shall be implemented.
Bio-14b: Native Oyster Surveys. A
detailed survey for native oysters
shall be conducted in all suitable
substrates within the OPSP area. This
survey shall be conducted by a
qualified oyster biologist at low tides
that expose the maximum amount of
substrate possible. Surveys can be
conducted at any time of year, but
late summer and early fall are
optimal because newly settled oysters
are detectable. This survey shall
occur before any construction within
aquatic habitats takes place to
establish a baseline condition. If few
or no oysters are observed on hard
substrates that would remain in place
after construction, no further
mitigation is required.
Bio-14c: Replacement of Suitable
Oyster Habitat. If more than 100
oysters would be removed or are in
areas where construction-generated
sediment could settle out onto the
Impact Bio-14 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Bio-14a, Bio-
14b, and Bio-14c are not applicable
to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
NI
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-36 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
oysters, compensatory mitigation
shall be provided by the OPSP
Applicant at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
The OPSP Applicant shall retain a
qualified oyster biologist to develop
an Oyster Restoration Plan that shall
be reviewed and approved by the
City. This Plan shall include site
selection, substrate installation, and
monitoring procedures, and include
the following components (unless
otherwise modified by NMFS):
1. A suitable site for installation of
replacement substrate would be
one with adequate daily tidal
flow, a location that would not be
affected by maintenance dredging
or other routine marina
maintenance activities, and one
that is lacking in appropriate
settlement substrate. A location
outside of the breakwaters or in
association with any eelgrass
mitigation sites would be
appropriate.
2. Although oysters may settle on a
variety of materials, the most
appropriate for restoration
purposes is oyster shell. This is
typically installed by placing the
shell into mesh bags that can then
be placed in piles on the seafloor
of the mitigation site. Enough
shell shall be installed under the
guidance of a qualified oyster
biologist to make up for the loss
attributable to the OPSP.
Mitigation shall occur after
construction of all in-water
elements of the OPSP.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-37
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
3. The restoration site shall be
monitored on a regular basis by a
qualified oyster biologist for a
minimum of two years, or until
success criteria are achieved if
they are not achieved within two
years. Monitoring shall involve
routine checks (bi-monthly during
the winter and monthly during the
spring and summer) to evaluate
settlement, growth, and survival
on the mitigation site. Success
shall be determined to have been
achieved when settlement and
survival rates for oysters are not
statistically significantly different
between the mitigation site and
the populations being impacted.
Impact Bio-15: Increased Turbidity
During In-Water Construction and
Eelgrass Beds. In-water construction
activities that result in increased
turbidity could potentially result in
adverse effects to eelgrass by
covering eelgrass with sediment.
Because eelgrass beds provide
nursery habitat for a variety of fish
species, they are very important to the
Bay ecosystem, and impacts to
eelgrass beds are thus potentially
significant.
Bio-15a: Water Quality Best
Management Practices for Eelgrass.
In addition to the water quality BMPs
described above in Measure Bio-3a,
the following BMPs shall minimize
impacts to any eelgrass beds in the
OPSP area.
1. Conduct all in-water work during
periods of eelgrass dormancy
(November 1-March 31) [Note:
the majority of this period
conflicts with the period during
which in-water activities should
not occur to avoid impacts to
salmonids; only the period
November 1-30 would avoid
impacts during sensitive periods
for both taxa.]
2. Install sediment curtains around
the worksite to minimize sediment
transport
If these BMPs are not feasible, or if
Impact Bio-15 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Bio-15a, Bio-
15b, and Bio-15c are not applicable
to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
NI
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-38 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
OPSP activities will occur in aquatic
areas outside of the marina,
mitigation measures 15b and 15c
shall be undertaken.
Bio-15b: Eelgrass Survey. Prior to
any construction activities in aquatic
habitats, a survey for eelgrass beds or
patches shall be conducted within
750 ft of expected aquatic
construction activities. The survey
shall be conducted by a biologist(s)
familiar with eelgrass identification
and ecology and approved by NMFS
to conduct such a survey. Survey
methods shall employ either SCUBA
or sufficient grab samples to ensure
that the bottom was adequately
inventoried. The survey shall occur
between August and October and
collect data on eelgrass distribution,
density, and depth of occurrence for
the survey areas. The edges of any
eelgrass beds or patches shall be
mapped. At the conclusion of the
survey a report shall be prepared
documenting the survey methods,
results, and eelgrass distribution, if
any, within the survey area. This
report shall be submitted to NMFS
for approval. If OPSP activities can
be adjusted so that no direct impacts
to eelgrass beds would occur, no
further mitigation would be required.
If direct impacts to eelgrass beds
cannot be avoided, the following
measures shall be implemented.
Bio-15c: Compensatory Eelgrass
Mitigation. If direct impacts to
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-39
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
eelgrass beds cannot be avoided,
compensatory mitigation shall be
provided in conformance with the
Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy. Mitigation shall
entail the replacement of impacted
eelgrass at a 3:1 (mitigation: impact)
ratio on an acreage basis, based on
the eelgrass mapping described in
mitigation measure 8B above, and
detailed designs of the feature(s) that
would impact eelgrass beds. Such
mitigation could occur either off site
or on site (NMFS 2005b). Off-site
mitigation could be achieved through
distribution of a sufficient amount of
funding to allow restoration or
enhancement of eelgrass beds at
another location in the Bay. If this
option is selected, all funds shall be
distributed to the appropriate state or
federal agency or restoration-focused
non-governmental agency (i.e.,
CDFG restoration fund, California
Coastal Conservancy, Save the Bay,
etc). The OPSP Applicant shall
provide written evidence to the City
that either a) compensation has been
established through the purchase of a
sufficient number of mitigation
credits to satisfy the mitigation
acreage requirements of the OPSP
activity, or funds sufficient for the
restoration of the mitigation acreage
requirements of the OPSP activity
have been paid. These funds shall be
applied only to eelgrass restoration
within the Bay.
If on-site mitigation is selected as the
appropriate option, the OPSP
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-40 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist familiar with eelgrass
ecology to prepare and implement a
detailed Eelgrass Mitigation Plan.
Unless otherwise directed by NMFS,
the Eelgrass Mitigation Plan shall
follow the basic outline and contain
all the components required of the
Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy (as revised in
2005), including: identification of the
mitigation need, site, transplant
methodology, mitigation extent
(typically 3:1 on an acreage basis),
monitoring protocols (including
frequency, staffing, reviewing
agencies, duration, etc), and success
criteria. A draft Eelgrass Mitigation
Plan shall be submitted to NMFS, for
its review and approval prior to
implementation, with a copy to the
City. Once the plan has been
approved, it shall be implemented in
the following appropriate season for
transplantation. Restored eelgrass
beds shall be monitored for success
over a 5-year period.
Cultural Resources
Impact Culture-1: Disturbance of
Unidentified Paleontological
Resources, Archaeological Resources
or Human Remains. During earth-
moving activities at the OPSP site, it
is possible that unidentified
paleontological resources,
archaeological resources or human
remains could be uncovered and
disturbed.
Culture-1a: Halt Construction
Activity, Evaluate Find and
Implement Mitigation. In the event
that any previously unidentified
paleontological or archaeological
resources are uncovered during site
preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such activity
shall cease until these resources have
been evaluated by a qualified
paleontologist or archaeologist and
specific mitigation measures can be
Revised Impact Culture-1:
Disturbance of Unidentified
Paleontological Resources,
Archaeological Resources, Tribal
Cultural Resources, or Human
Remains. During earth-moving
activities at the OPSP site, it is
possible that unidentified
paleontological resources,
archaeological resources, tribal
cultural resources, or human
remains could be uncovered and
Revised Mitigation Measures
Culture-1a: Halt Construction
Activity, Evaluate Find and
Implement Mitigation. In the event
that any previously unidentified
paleontological resources, tribal
cultural resources, or archaeological
resources are uncovered during site
preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such
activity shall cease until these
LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-41
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
implemented to protect these
resources.
Culture-1b: Halt Construction
Activity, Evaluate Find and Take
Appropriate Action in Coordination
with Native American Heritage
Commission. In the event that any
human remains are uncovered during
site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such activity
shall cease until these resources have
been evaluated by the County
Coroner, and appropriate action taken
in coordination with the Native
American Heritage Commission.
disturbed.
resources have been evaluated by a
qualified paleontologist or
archaeologist and specific mitigation
measures can be implemented to
protect these resources.
Culture-1b: Halt Construction
Activity, Evaluate Find and Take
Appropriate Action in Coordination
with Native American Heritage
Commission. In the event that any
human remains are uncovered during
site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such
activity shall cease until these
resources have been evaluated by the
County Coroner, and appropriate
action taken if necessary in
coordination with the Native
American Heritage Commission.
Geology and Soils
Impact Geo-1: Surface Fault Rupture.
According to the latest available
maps, the OPSP site is not contained
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone boundary. Published
geologic maps of the area show the
San Andreas fault (the closest known
fault to the site) as lying about 7.3
kilometers (4.5 miles) to the west.
The potential impact of surface fault
rupture is considered less-than-
significant.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS with MM
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground
Shaking. There is a high probability
that the proposed development will be
subjected to strong to violent ground
shaking from an earthquake during its
Geo-2a: Compliance with California
Building Code. OPSP development
shall meet requirements of the
California Building Code, including
the California Building Standards,
Same Same LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-42 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
design life. Strong to violent seismic
ground shaking is considered a
potentially significant impact.
published by the International
Conference of Building Officials, and
as modified by the amendments,
additions and deletions as adopted by
the City of South San Francisco,
California. Incorporation of seismic
construction standards will reduce
the potential for catastrophic effects
of ground shaking, such as complete
structural failure, but will not
completely eliminate the hazard of
seismically induced ground shaking.
Geo-2b: Compliance with a design-
level Geotechnical Investigation
report prepared by a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and with
Structural Design Plans as prepared
by a Licensed Professional Engineer.
Proper foundation engineering and
construction shall be performed in
accordance with the
recommendations of a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and a
Licensed Professional Engineer. The
structural engineering design, with
supporting Geotechnical
Investigation, shall incorporate
seismic parameters compliant with
the California Building Code.
Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit.
The OPSP applicant shall obtain a
building permit through the City of
South San Francisco Building
Division. Plan Review of planned
buildings and structures shall be
completed by the Building Division
for adherence to the seismic design
criteria for planned commercial and
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-43
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
industrial sites in the East of 101 area
of the City of South San Francisco.
According to the East of 101 area
plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings shall not be subject to
catastrophic collapse under
foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the
event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Impact Geo-3. Liquefaction,
Densification, and Ground Surface
Settlement. The Association of Bay
Area Governments identifies the
OPSP area as an area of high hazard
for liquefaction. However, based on
the subsurface data obtained from the
previous drilled borings at Oyster
Point (noted above among the
references reviewed), the existing
landfill materials, residual soils, Bay
Mud, and Franciscan Complex
bedrock have a low potential for
liquefaction. Therefore, damage due
to liquefaction at Oyster Point is
considered low. It should be noted
that the landfill is contained by soil
dikes along the water-side site
perimeter. These perimeter dikes are
reported to have been constructed of
Bay Mud, which has low potential for
liquefaction. Prior to new site
development, geotechnical studies
shall be undertaken to confirm the
material types used in the
construction of the perimeter dikes to
verify the assumed low potential for
liquefaction. Liquefaction or
densification of soils composing or
underlying the perimeter dikes could
Geo-3a: Compliance with
recommendations of a Geotechnical
Investigation and in conformance
with Structural Design Plans. A
design-level Geotechnical
Investigation shall be prepared for
the site under the direction of a
California Registered Geotechnical
Engineer and shall include analysis
for liquefaction potential of the site
soils, particularly in the perimeter
dikes. Proper foundation engineering
and construction shall be performed
in accordance with the
recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation. The
Geotechnical Investigation shall be
reviewed and approved by the City’s
Geotechnical Consultant and by the
City Engineer. A Registered
Structural Engineer shall prepare
project structural design plans.
Structures shall be designed to reduce
the effects of anticipated seismic
settlements. The Geotechnical
Engineer shall review the Structural
Design Plans and provide approval
for the Geotechnical elements of the
plans. The design plans shall identify
specific mitigation measures to
Same Same LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-44 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
result in settlement and differential
settlement of site improvements
including buildings, pavements, and
utilities and pose a threat to human
health. The potential for liquefaction
of perimeter dike soils is considered a
potentially significant impact.
reduce liquefaction potential, if the
potential for liquefaction is found to
exist, or other ground failure modes
such as lateral spreading, seismic
densification or stability of the
perimeter dike slopes. Mitigation
measures may include ground
improvement by methods such as
stone columns or jet grouting.
Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit.
The OPSP applicant shall obtain a
building permit through the City of
South San Francisco Building
Division. Plan Review of planned
buildings and structures shall be
completed by the Building Division
for adherence to the seismic design
criteria for planned commercial and
industrial sites in the East of 101 area
of the City of South San Francisco.
According to the East of 101 area
plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings should not be subject to
catastrophic collapse under
foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the
event of damage following a strong
earthquake.
Impact Geo-4. Perimeter Dike
Stability. Based on a review of
available subsurface information, the
dikes that surround the site are
assumed to be constructed primarily
of cohesive soils derived from Bay
Mud. Slope stability of the perimeter
dikes is critical to the integrity of the
site. Slope stability of the dikes is
controlled primarily by the strength of
the materials used in dike
Geo-4: Compliance with
recommendations of a Geotechnical
Investigation. A design-level
Geotechnical Investigation shall
include an evaluation of static
stability and seismic stability under a
design magnitude earthquake event.
Seismic analyses shall include
pseudo-static analyses to estimate
permanent slope displacements due
to earthquake motions. The
Same Same LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-45
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
construction and of the soils on which
the dikes are founded. Prior to new
site development, geotechnical
studies shall be undertaken to confirm
the material types used in the
construction of the perimeter dikes to
verify that the slopes meet minimum
criteria for stability under both static
and seismic conditions. Failure of the
perimeter dike slopes could result in
settlement and differential settlement
of site improvements including
buildings, pavements, and utilities
and pose a threat to human health. In
the absence of evidence that
demonstrates adequate stability of the
perimeter dike slopes under both
static and seismic conditions, stability
of the perimeter dike slopes is
considered a potentially significant
impact.
Geotechnical Engineer shall prepare
recommendations to mitigate
potential slope instability, if slope
stability problems are identified.
Mitigation measures may include
ground improvement by methods
such as stone columns or jet grouting.
Design-level Geotechnical
Investigations shall be completed
during preliminary and final design
stages and will confirm material
types used in the construction of the
perimeter dikes to verify that the
slopes meet minimum criteria for
stability under both static and seismic
conditions. Knowledge of the
stability of the perimeter dikes will
guide the selection of any future
measures to mitigate any deficiencies
identified in the perimeter dike.
Impact Geo-5: Variable Subsurface
Conditions and Selection of
Foundation Types and Depths.
Geotechnical considerations for the
selection of alternative foundation
types for the site include the
following:
• The presence of Bay Mud, landfill
waste and other area fill over most
of the proposed building footprint
areas;
• Varying thicknesses of Bay Mud,
landfill waste and other fill;
• Sloping bedrock surface; and
• Presence of possible paleochannels
in the north/northwest portions of
the site.
These variable subsurface conditions
Geo-5a: Deep Foundations. Because
of the magnitude of expected
settlement of Bay Mud soils and
waste fill materials that would occur
under new building loads, the OPSP
applicant must consider the use of
deep foundations such as driven
piles. Specific recommendations for
suitable deep foundation alternatives
and required penetrations will be
provided during the course of a
design-level geotechnical
investigation and will depend on
factors such as the depth and
hardness of the underlying clays,
sands or bedrock, and the corrosivity
of the waste materials and Bay Mud
soils. Suitable deep foundation types
may include driven precast,
Same Same LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-46 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
will influence the design,
performance and constructability of
foundation systems for the proposed
buildings and are considered a
potentially significant impact.
prestressed concrete piles or driven
closed-end steel pipe piles with the
interior of the pile filled with
concrete after driving.
Deep foundations shall extend
through all waste materials and Bay
Mud and be tipped in underlying stiff
to hard clays, dense sands or
weathered bedrock. Where waste and
Bay Mud soils underlie the site, wall
and column loads as well as floor
slabs shall be founded on deep
foundations. Settlement of properly-
designed and constructed deep
foundation elements is typically less
than about one-half inch. The
majority of settlement typically
occurs during construction as the
loads are applied.
Where landfill waste and Bay Mud
are not present (possibly at extreme
western and northwestern edges of
the site) and competent soil or
bedrock are present near the ground
surface (within about 5 feet of
finished grade elevation), shallow
foundations such as footings or mats
may be appropriate foundation types,
as determined during the course of a
design-level geotechnical
investigation. Where proposed
structures straddle a transition zone
between these conditions, a
combination of shallow and deep
foundations may be required. Any
transition zones shall be identified
during site-specific geotechnical
investigations for preliminary and
final designs.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-47
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Geo-5b: Predrilling and/or Pile
Configuration. Piles either shall be
predrilled through the fill and landfill
materials to protect the piles from
damage due to unknown materials, to
reduce pushing waste material
deeper, and to reduce pile alignment
problems or shall have a pointed tip
configuration. If a drill is used, it
should only loosen and break up in-
place obstructions that may cause
pile damage. During recent
subsurface investigations reported by
Treadwell & Rollo (2009b)
obstructions including concrete
rubble was encountered throughout
the landfill area, particularly in the
northern end of the site. Even with
predrilling, precast concrete piles
could be damaged during installation
at a landfill site such as Oyster Point.
For preliminary planning purposes, a
precast concrete pile breakage rate
during installation of 10 to 15 percent
may be considered applicable.
Piles usually have to include pointed
tip configurations to avoid pushing
landfill waste downward. These
configurations are typically readily
accommodated by pile driving
contractors.
Geo-5c: Indicator Pile Program.
Prior to specifying the lengths of the
production piles, drive indicator piles
at the structure sites in order to
observe the driving characteristic of
the piles and the ability of the driving
equipment when a driven pile is used.
The driving criteria and pile length of
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-48 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
production piles shall also be
estimated from the information
obtained from driving of the indicator
piles. The contractor shall use the
same equipment to drive both the
indicator and production piles.
Indicator pile lengths and locations
shall be selected by the Geotechnical
Engineer, in conjunction with the
Structural Engineer and Contractor
after the foundation plan has been
finalized.
The indicator pile program will serve
to establish information on the
following:
• Estimates of production pile
lengths;
• Drivability of production piles;
• Performance of pile driving
equipment; and
• Variation in driving resistance
relative to depth and location of
piles.
Impact Geo-6: Drag Load on Deep
Foundations. The landfill wastes and
the underlying Bay Mud are settling
due to consolidation and on-going
decomposition-induced settlement of
the wastes. Deep foundations (piles)
will extend through the waste and
Bay Mud layers and into underlying
materials that are relatively
incompressible. The settlement of the
waste and Bay Mud around the piles
will tend to move downward relative
to the pile. This settlement will
accumulate a drag load on the pile
element, which will depend on the
Geo-6: Account for Drag Load on
Deep Foundations. The Geotechnical
Engineer shall account for
accumulation of drag load in the
structural design of the deep
foundations elements (piles).
Same Same LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-49
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
material layering and thickness, pile
length and load on the pile. On-going
settlement of Bay Mud soils and
waste materials is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Impact Geo-7: Landfill Gas Entry
into Buildings. Construction of
buildings over the landfill cap could
allow landfill gas to accumulate
beneath building floors and permeate
into the building interiors. Landfill
gas accumulation inside buildings and
at the building-soil interface may
adversely affect the health and safety
of building occupants. Accumulation
of landfill gas beneath and inside
structures is a potentially significant
impact.
Geo-7: Incorporate Systems for
Landfill Gas Control. Measures for
the control of landfill gas shall be
included in building design.
Measures for the control of landfill
gas typically include a collection
system, floor slab shielding and
interior alarms.
Same Same LTS with MM
Impact Geo-8: Landfill Waste
Materials and Bay Mud. Placement of
additional fill or other new loads at
the site will result in additional site
settlement due to consolidation
settlement of the Bay Mud soils and
the compaction and decomposition
induced settlement of submerged
waste and waste above groundwater.
Due to the generally heterogeneous
nature of the landfill, differential
settlement of the soil cap will be on-
going. This differential settlement can
disrupt drainage patterns and cause
damage to pavements, underground
utilities and soil-supported structures.
The magnitude of new settlement in
response to additional fill will depend
on the thickness of the fill, the lateral
extent, and the current thickness of
the soil cap. For estimating purposes,
settlements on the order of 3 to 5
Geo-8a: Avoid Significant New
Loads on Landfill Waste and Bay
Mud. A design-level Geotechnical
Investigation shall include
exploration to more thoroughly
determine the thickness and areal
extent of landfill waste and Bay Mud.
To avoid inducing additional
settlement to the settlement that is
already on-going, grading plans shall
include as little additional new fill as
possible, and significant new
structure loads or any structures that
are settlement-sensitive shall be
founded on deep foundations
extended below the Bay Mud, as
recommended in the design-level
Geotechnical Investigation report.
All grading shall be planned to avoid
penetrating the landfill cap and to
reduce the amount of long-term
Impact Geo-8 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Geo-8a, and
Geo-8b are not applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-50 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
inches for every foot of new fill
should be anticipated. Settlement due
to the presence of unstable soil, waste
and Bay Mud is a potentially
significant impact.
settlement in response to new fills.
Because the Bay Mud and waste
across most of the site are still
settling under the weight of existing
fill and waste decomposition and will
settle more under new fills,
additional settlement should be
expected, with the creation of
localized low-lying surface areas.
Existing low areas shall be corrected
during site grading to allow for
proper drainage. Long-term
maintenance planning for the
development shall also include
provisions for periodic grading to
correct drainage problems and
improve site grades, as outlined in
the Disposition and Development
Agreement.
The Geotechnical Engineer will
recommend other site-specific
recommendations based on the
results of the design-level
Geotechnical Investigation to
mitigate on-going settlement and any
additional settlement to be expected
in response to new development.
Geo-8b: Design Building-Soil
Interface to Allow Free Movement.
The Structural Engineer shall provide
that structures not supported on deep
foundations not be structurally tied
into pile-supported buildings, except
as noted below, and shall be designed
to allow free vertical movement
between structures.
Articulated ramps on walkways and
building entrances at the interface
between the pile and soil-supported
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-51
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
areas can provide a smooth walkway
over moderate differential
settlements with some amount of
maintenance. As the magnitude of
the differential settlement increases,
however, these ramps may need to be
rebuilt or realigned to account for the
larger elevation differential. Similar
ramps may also reduce differential
settlements between driveways and
pile-supported parking lots.
Over time, voids will tend to form
beneath pile-supported buildings due
to on-going settlement of the landfill.
Use of wall skirts around the building
perimeter will help to reduce the
visual impact of these voids.
Impact Geo-9: Hazardous Conditions
During Excavation and Following
Construction. Excavations extending
into either the landfill cap or into the
waste fill are expected to encounter
potentially hazardous conditions
including poisonous and explosive
gases. This may be true in shallower
excavations as well. This is a
potentially significant impact during
and following site construction
activities.
Geo-9a: Monitoring and Testing.
Special precautions shall be taken to
monitor the safety conditions and to
provide for the safety of workers in
the area. Additionally, if excavations
encounter water, this water shall be
tested for contaminants and may have
to undergo specialized handling,
treatment and/or disposal if it is
contaminated. A system to disperse
methane during construction shall be
installed in or adjacent to the
trenches.
Geo-9b: Locate Underground
Utilities in Soil Cap. To the extent
practicable, the utilities shall be
constructed in the soil landfill cap to
avoid direct contact of the utility
lines and construction workers with
the waste material. If construction of
utilities in the waste material is
necessary, proper design and
Impact Geo-9 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Geo-9a, Geo-
9b, and Geo-9c are not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-52 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
construction precautions shall be
taken to protect the system and the
workers from the corrosive and
hazardous conditions of the waste.
Geo-9c: Seal Trenches and
Underground Structures. Trenches
and underground structures shall be
sealed to preclude gas intrusion.
Typical types of sealing procedures
include providing a low permeability
clay cover of 1 foot over the top of
the pipe, or the utility trench be lined
with a relatively impervious
geomembrane. Underground
manholes may be shielded from
methane intrusion by placement of a
membrane around the outside of the
structure. To reduce gas migration
off-site within the utility trenches, all
trenches crossing the transition zone
between the landfill and non-landfill
portions of the property shall be
sealed with a clay plug surrounding
the pipe or other approved methods.
In addition, plugs shall also be
provided at the perimeters of
buildings to reduce migration of gas
through the utility trenches to
beneath the buildings.
Impact Geo-10: Damage to Landfill
Cap Due to Excavation. Excavations
for buildings, utilities and other
underground structures that extend
into the landfill cap may result in
damage to the landfill cap. This
would be a potentially significant
impact on safety during and after
construction and on the continued
performance of the landfill cap.
Geo-10: Provide For Continuity of
Landfill Cap. Following planned
landfill excavation and landfill cap
repair, the project Civil Engineer
shall require that excavations for
building foundations, utility trenches
and other underground structures be
configured to maintain continuity of
the landfill cap. The specific
configuration will depend upon the
Impact Geo-10 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Geo-10 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-53
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
excavation depth and orientation to
underlying wastes. However, a low-
permeability layer of soil or a
geomembrane properly tied to
surrounding cap areas may be
required.
Impact Geo-11: Stresses at Building
Connections. Underground utilities
will be subject to distress at building
connection locations due to
differential settlement. It is
anticipated that the most crucial
sections of the utility lines will occur
at the interface between the soil
supported utility line and the pile
supported buildings. At this interface
differential settlements of several feet
are possible. This would be a
potentially significant impact on the
performance of underground utilities.
Geo-11: Common Trenches and
Vaults. Where underground utilities
are to be located in landfill areas,
consideration shall be given to
reducing the number of utilities
trenches by locating utilities in
common trenches to the extent
practicable. In addition, vaulted
systems shall be designed and
maintained at such interfaces that
provide flexible and/or expandable
connections to the proposed
buildings. In addition, the utility
lines beneath buildings shall be
suspended from hangers fastened to
structural floor slabs.
Impact Geo-11 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Geo-11 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
Impact Geo-12: Stresses in Utility
Line Materials. Differential
settlement will cause distress to the
materials used in underground
utilities construction. On a landfill
site the effects of differential
settlement are typically more severe
than at a conventional site due to the
generally higher levels of settlement
that occur. Differential settlement is a
potentially significant impact on the
performance of underground utilities.
Geo-12: Flexible Materials and
Joints. Utility lines shall be
constructed of flexible pipe such as
welded polyethylene to accommodate
differential settlement within the
waste material and landfill cap. At
the border of the landfill, where
differential settlements are expected
to be large, the utility lines shall be
designed to allow for rotation. As
with buried utilities on a
conventional site, proper bedding and
backfilling shall be completed, as
specified in a design-level
geotechnical investigation report.
Impact Geo-12 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Geo-12 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
Impact Geo-13: Disruption of Flow
Gradient. Differential settlement will
Geo-13: Increase Flow Gradient.
The Civil Engineer shall consider
Impact Geo-13 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Geo-13 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-54 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
tend to disrupt flow gradients in
gravity-flow sewers and storm drains.
This is a potentially significant impact
on the performance of these utilities.
increasing the flow gradient in
sewers and storm drains so that
differential settlements will not
disrupt the flow. An alternative is to
provide a pumping system that does
not rely on gravity flow. Such
measures will reduce the impact of
reduced flow gradient due to
differential settlement to less than
significant. This applies to the entire
OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
LTS
Impact Geo-14: Soil Erosion. The
OPSP would involve mass grading at
a location that drains stormwater to
the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of
existing structures and pavements
could expose underlying landfill cap
soils to the elements. Excavation of
soil for construction of new buildings
and pavement sections would also be
performed and temporary stockpiles
of loose soil will be created. Soils
exposed during site grading would be
subject to erosion during storm
events. Grading would disturb site
soils potentially leading to impacts to
the San Francisco Bay. This would be
a potentially significant impact during
and following site construction
activities.
Geo-14: Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan. In accordance with
the Clean Water Act and the State
Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of
construction. The SWPPP shall
include specific best management
practices to reduce soil erosion. This
is required to obtain coverage under
the General Permit for Discharges of
Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction
General Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Same Same LTS with MM
Impact Geo-15: Expansive Soils.
Available existing geotechnical
information for the OPSP site does
not identify the presence of highly-
plastic, near-surface expansive soils.
Therefore, at this time the impact of
expansive soils with respect to
shallow foundations is considered to
be less-than-significant. This applies
to the entire OPSP, including the
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-55
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Phase I Project.
Impact Geo-16: Bayside Open Space
Wave Stability. The bayside open
space area could be subject to wave
action, which could erode
improvements and potentially lead to
instability. The potential for erosion
and instability of the bayside open
space area is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Geo-16: Compliance with
Recommendations of a Coastal
Engineer. A design-level
investigation of the sustainability of
the proposed bayside open space in
the local wave environment shall be
prepared by a qualified coastal
engineer. Elements of this analysis
shall include an investigation of the
local wave environment at the
proposed bayside open space
location, development and
verification of numerical models of
local wave action based on
comparisons of measured and
predicted wave heights, and
application of the predictive
numerical models to refine the open
space design. Depending on the
results of this investigation, the
design of the bayside open space may
need to incorporate protection
measures such as structural elements
(e.g., concrete seatwalls) and/or
buffer zones (i.e., lengths of flat
beach between the dynamic beach
slope and any needed structural
elements). The design plans shall
incorporate appropriate
recommendations from this
investigation.
If the recommendations require any
construction in-water or near the
shoreline, these may require
subsequent permitting from BCDC
and/or USACE and would also be
subject to mitigation measures Bio-
12, -13a, -13b, 14a, -14b, -14c, -15a,
-15b, and -15c.
Impact Geo-16 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Geo-16 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
NI
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-56 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: Construction-Period
GHG Emissions. Temporary
construction-related exhaust would be
an additional source of GHG
emissions that could contribute to
significant impacts on the
environment. This is a less-than-
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1:
Construction GHG Reduction
Measures. The following best
practice measures shall be included
in construction contracts to reduce
GHG emissions during construction,
as feasible.
• At least 15 percent of the fleet of
construction vehicles/equipment
shall be alternative fueled (e.g.,
biodiesel, electric).
• At least 10 percent of the building
materials shall be locally sourced.
• At least 50 percent of construction
waste or demolition materials shall
be recycled or reused.
This impact has been combined
with Impact GHG-2 below.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS
Impact GHG-2: Operational
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. New
development in the OPSP area would
be an additional source of GHG
emissions, primarily through
consumption of energy for
transportation and energy usage,
which could contribute to significant
impacts on the environment. This
impact is potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Traf-1 (included
with Impact Traf-1) and energy
efficiency measures included in the
project design would reduce this
impact. However, since the
quantified emissions are above 2010
thresholds, this impact is
conservatively determined to be
Significant and Unavoidable.
Impact GHG-1: Construction-
Period and GHG Emissions.
Temporary construction-related
exhaust would be an additional
source of GHG emissions that
could contribute to significant
impacts on the environment. This is
a less-than-significant impact.
Impact GHG-2: Operational
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. New
development in the OPSP area
would be an additional source of
construction-period and operational
GHG emissions, primarily through
consumption of energy for
transportation and energy usage,
which could contribute to
significant impacts on the
environment. However, projects are
required to implement all applicable
measures of the Climate Action
Further reduced by Mitigation
Measures Air-4a and Traf-1.
SU
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-57
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Plan and emission rates will be
below applicable threshold levels.
This impact is potentially less-than-
significant.
Hazardous Materials
Impact Haz-1: Routine transportation,
use or disposal of hazardous
materials. While specific tenants have
not yet been identified, research
laboratories are likely to handle
materials considered to be biological
hazards, chemical hazards and/or
carry a risk of fire or explosion. The
risk of accidental upset and
environmental contamination from
routine transport, storage, use and
disposal of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials to the public and
environment is a potentially
significant impact.
Haz-1a: Plan Review for Adherence
to Fire and Safety Codes. Building
space shall be designed to handle the
intended use, with sprinklers, alarms,
vents, and secondary containment
structures, where applicable. These
systems shall pass plan review
through the City of South San
Francisco Planning, Building and
Fire Departments.
Haz-1b: Construction Inspection and
Final Inspection Prior to Occupancy.
During construction, the utilities
including sprinkler systems shall pass
pressure and flush tests to make sure
they perform as designed. At the end
of construction, occupancy shall not
be allowed until a final inspection is
made by the Fire Department for
conformance of all building systems
with the Fire Code and National Fire
Protection Agency Requirements.
The inspection shall include testing
of sprinklers systems, alarm systems,
ventilation and airflow systems, and
secondary containment systems. The
inspection shall include a review of
the emergency evacuation plans.
These plans shall be modified as
deemed necessary.
Haz-1c: Hazardous Materials
Business Plan Program. Businesses
occupying the development shall
Revised Impact Haz-1: Routine
transportation, use or disposal of
hazardous materials. While specific
tenants have not yet been identified,
research laboratories are likely to
handle materials considered to be
biological hazards, chemical
hazards and/or carry a risk of fire or
explosion. The change from
proposed office/R&D uses to
residential uses would involve the
use of household hazardous waste
such as vehicle components and
cleaners. The risk of accidental
upset and environmental
contamination from routine
transport, storage, use and disposal
of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials to the public
and environment is a potentially
significant impact.
Same LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-58 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
complete a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan for the safe storage
and use of chemicals. The Business
Plan shall include the type and
quantity of hazardous materials, a
site map showing storage locations of
hazardous materials and where they
may be used and transported from,
risks of using these materials,
material safety data sheets for each
material, a spill prevention plan, an
emergency response plan, employee
training consistent with OSHA
guidelines, and emergency contact
information. Businesses qualify for
the program if they store a hazardous
material equal to or greater than the
minimum reportable quantities.
These quantities are 55 gallons for
liquids, 500 pounds for solids and
200 cubic feet (at standard
temperature and pressure) for
compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses
selling only pre-packaged consumer
goods; medical professionals who
store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous
oxide in quantities not more than
1,000 cubic feet for each material,
and who store or use no other
hazardous materials; or facilities that
store no more than 55 gallons of a
specific type of lubricating oil, and
for which the total quantity of
lubricating oil not exceed 275 gallons
for all types of lubricating oil. These
exemptions are not expected to apply
to on-site laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or
operating at the proposed
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-59
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
development shall submit a business
plan prior to the start of operations,
and shall review and update the
entire Business Plan at least once
every two years, or within 30 days of
any significant change, including
without limitation, changes to
emergency contact information,
major increases or decreases in
hazardous materials storage and/or
changes in location of hazardous
materials. Plans shall be submitted to
the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD) Business Plan Program,
which may be contacted at (650)
363-4305 for more information. The
SMCEHD shall inspect the business
at least once a year to make sure that
the Business Plan is complete and
accurate.
Haz-1d: Hazardous Waste Generator
Program. Qualifying businesses shall
register and comply with the
hazardous waste generator program.
The State of California DTSC
authorized the SMCEHD to inspect
and regulate non-permitted hazardous
waste generators in San Mateo
County based on the Hazardous
Waste Control Law found in the
California Health and Safety Code
Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and
regulations found in the CCR Title
22, Division 4.5. Regulations require
businesses generating any amount of
hazardous waste as defined by
regulation to properly store, manage
and dispose of such waste. SMCEHD
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-60 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
staff also conducts surveillance and
enforcement activities in conjunction
with the County District Attorney's
Office for businesses or individuals
that significantly violate the above
referenced law and regulations.
Haz-1e: Compliance with Applicable
Laws and Regulations. All
transportation of hazardous materials
and hazardous waste to and from the
OPSP area shall be in accordance
with CFR Title 49, US Department of
Transportation (DOT), State of
California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and local
laws, ordinances and procedures
including placards, signs and other
identifying information.
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous
Materials Release During Disturbance
of Landfill Materials. Site preparation
and construction activities in the
vicinity of the landfill could result in
release of hazardous solid waste,
groundwater and/or soil vapor and the
potential for direct exposure to
workers engaged in soil excavation
and dewatering activities. This
represents a potentially significant
impact.
Haz-2: Waste Excavation and Re-
disposition. A plan shall be written
for management of excavated
wastes/refuse. Non-hazardous
excavated waste shall be re-deposited
in an alternate part of the site and any
hazardous waste shall be relocated
off-site for appropriate disposal. The
plan can be a section of the Site
Management Plan (Mitigation
Measure Haz-4a), or a stand alone
document. The plan shall include
measures to avoid releases of wastes
or waste water into the environment
and to protect workers and the public.
The details of the plan shall be based,
in part, on the amount of material to
be removed and the final design of
foundation structures, but will
generally include the following, as
deemed appropriate by the regulatory
Impact Haz-2 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Haz-2 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-61
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
agencies, particularly DTSC and
RWQCB:
• To the greatest extent possible, use
existing boring data to obtain pre-
characterization of refuse for off-
site disposal, and to pre-plan areas
to be removed versus areas to be
re-deposited on-site.
• Divide excavation areas into daily
sections; plan to complete
excavation and backfilling a
section during each working day.
Minimize the time period that
refuse is exposed.
• Review existing boring data and
existing site documentation to
evaluate potential subsurface
materials to be encountered.
• Stake out area to be excavated.
• If excavation is to be conducted at
depths where groundwater is to be
encountered, conduct dewatering
to minimize worker potential direct
contact with groundwater.
Removed groundwater shall be
treated in accordance with the
requirements outlined in the Site
Management Plan (Mitigation
Measure Haz-4a).
• Screen excavation site with a
portable photoionization detector
and combustible gas monitor for
landfill gasses. Continue screening
progress of each excavation section
as work proceeds. Use foam
suppressants or 6 inches minimum
of daily soil cover for nuisance
odors.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-62 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
• Provide carbon dioxide gas source
(fire extinguisher or cylinder) to
flood excavation as necessary to
prevent migration of gases into
atmosphere above excavation,
minimize explosive or fire
potential, and control nuisance and
odors.
• Begin excavation and segregate
soil and /or clay cap material above
refuse for reuse as foundation
layer.
• Upon reaching refuse, place refuse
into dump truck standing by on-
site.
• Dispose of each truck load of
refuse immediately after filling
equipment. All loads to be covered
when hauling. Refuse shall be
either re-deposited on-site in a
specified area, or hauled to an off-
site disposal facility.
• Prior to relocation, field verify
each load for disposal
classification type (landfill
classification, Class 3 or Class 2).
If waste for off-site disposal is
characterized as either California
or Federal Hazardous Waste as
defined in the criteria described in
CCR Title 22 Section 66261, then
the hazardous waste shall be
tracked using the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest System
(USEPA Form 8700-22).
• Hazardous and if necessary, non-
hazardous waste shall be
transported to the appropriate
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-63
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
disposal facility using a permitted,
licensed, and insured transportation
company. Transporters of
hazardous waste shall meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 263 and
22 CCR 66263. Copies of uniform
hazardous waste manifests signed
by the designated waste disposal
facility shall be retained for at least
five years from the date the waste
was accepted by the initial
transporter. Copies of records
pertaining to the characterization
of hazardous or nonhazardous
waste shall be retained for a
minimum of three years.
• Upon reaching over-excavation
depth, place a minimum of 6-inch
thick layer of appropriate backfill
soil on excavation bottom to seal
exposed refuse surface. Place soil
by the end of the same day
excavation is completed.
• Upon completion of excavation,
begin cap placement procedures.
Specific measures shall be targeted to
minimize the duration of waste
exposure, plan for appropriate final
destination of wastes based on the
presence of contaminants of concern,
allow for adjustment in plan based on
unexpected occurrences, and to
protect worker safety and the public.
Additional work plan measures are
discussed in Haz-4a. In addition,
worker protection measures for soil
and dewatering are discussed in Haz-
6a. Measures specific to off-site air
quality during construction are
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-64 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
included in mitigation measure Air-4.
Impact Haz-3: Accidental Release of
Hazardous Building Materials.
During demolition of existing
buildings, hazardous building
materials could be released from
structures at the site. These represent
potentially significant impacts.
Haz-3: Demolition Plan and
Permitting. A demolition plan with
permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San
Francisco Building Department for
approval prior to demolition. Prior to
obtaining a demolition permit from
the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD),
an asbestos demolition survey shall
be conducted in accordance with the
requirements of BAAQMD
Regulation 11, Rule 2. Prior to
building demolition, hazardous
building materials such as peeling,
chipping and friable lead-based paint
and asbestos containing building
materials, if identified on the site,
shall be removed in accordance with
all applicable guidelines, laws, and
ordinances. The Demolition Plan for
safe demolition of existing structures
shall incorporate recommendations
from the site surveys for the presence
of potentially hazardous building
materials, as well as additional
surveys if required by the City. The
demolition plan shall address both
on-site Worker Protection and off-
site resident protection from both
chemical and physical hazards.
Contaminated building materials, if
identified, shall be tested for
contaminant concentrations and shall
be disposed of to appropriate licensed
landfill facilities. The Demolition
Plan shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and
attached contaminants, as merited by
Same Same LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-65
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
the surveys. The need for dust control
and suspension of work during dry
windy days shall be addressed in the
plan.
Impact Haz-4: Accidental Future
Hazardous Materials Release of Pre-
existing Site Materials. Landfill
materials, which include hazardous
materials in solid waste, groundwater
and soil vapor, shall remain on-site
following construction. Installation of
new structures presents the potential
for build up of soil gasses within the
structures, posing a risk to building
occupants and additional loading of
the site surface could increase the rate
of on-site waste settlement, leading to
off-site migration of leachate. This
represents a potentially significant
impact.
Haz-4a: Landfill Cap Upgrades. A
landfill cap currently exists to
prevent exposure of the public to
impacted solids or groundwater. The
cap shall be repaired and upgraded to
meet CCR Title 27 requirements.
CCR Title 27 requires closed
landfills have a minimum 4 foot cap,
consisting of a 2 foot base layer, a 1
foot clay layer with specified low
hydraulic conductivity and a 1 foot
erosion control layer. The minimum
4 feet of clean material that
comprises the cap shall prevent
exposure of the underlying material,
preventing releases at the surface.
The low hydraulic conductivity layer
shall also act to minimize generation
of leachate.
Haz-4b: Use Of Deep Foundations
To Prevent Load Induced Settlement.
Buildings on fill shall be supported
using driven steel or concrete piles
founded in stiff to hard clays, dense
sands or weathered bedrock
underlying the fill. Both the
structural loads and building floor
slabs shall be supported on piles.
This will avoid placing additional
building loads on fill material.
Haz-4c: Minimization of Irrigation
Water Use. Landscaping of the site
shall be selected to stabilize the soil,
prevent erosion, and reduce the need
for extensive irrigation. Excessive
Impact Haz-4 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Haz-4a through
Haz-4e are not applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-66 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
water could infiltrate the landfill cap
and produce leachate. To prevent
this, low-water vegetation shall be
selected to reduce irrigation water. In
addition the thickness of the erosion
resistant layer in landscaped areas
will be increased to minimize
intrusion of roots into the lower
layers of the cover.
Haz-4d: Monitoring for Leachate
Migration. A series of natural and
man-made barriers have been
implemented to prevent migration of
impacted leachate into the
surrounding area. Based on
monitoring at the site implemented
per the PCMP, these measures are
currently effective in preventing
releases. Leachate shall continue to
be monitored, as discussed in Haz-4e,
below. Leachate containment for the
landfill portion of the OPSP shall be
upgraded as needed during and
following construction, as per the
requirements of RWQCB Order No.
00-046 and the PCMP.
Haz-4e: Operation and Maintenance
Activities. Operation and
maintenance (O&M) activities are
expected to occur indefinitely at the
site. Operation and maintenance
activities shall include inspections
and observations of site features to
protect the landfill cap, prevent
utility damage, maintain gravity flow
of sewer systems, maintain the
landfill gas barrier and venting
systems, and monitor for leachate
and groundwater contaminant
concentrations. O&M shall act to
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-67
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
prevent releases of hazardous
materials by identifying deficits in
engineering controls prior to release
events.
Impact Haz-5: Accidental Hazardous
Materials Release of Laboratory
Chemicals. Following construction,
operations at the proposed facilities
are expected to represent a continuing
threat to the environment through
accidental release of hazardous
materials since the site is proposed to
include laboratory facilities, where
hazardous materials stored or used on
site could lead to an accidental
release. This represents a potentially
significant impact.
Haz-5: California Accidental Release
Prevention Program (CalARP).
Future businesses at the development
shall check the state and federal lists
of regulated substances available
from the SMCEHD. Chemicals on
the list are chemicals that pose a
major threat to public health and
safety or the environment because
they are highly toxic, flammable or
explosive. Businesses shall determine
which list to use in consultation with
the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the
program, they shall complete a
CalARP registration form and submit
it to SMCEHD. Following
registration, they shall submit a Risk
Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are
designed to handle accidental
releases and ensure that businesses
have the proper information to
provide to emergency response teams
if an accidental release occurs. All
businesses that store or handle more
than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a
regulated substance shall develop a
RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe
impacts to public health and the
environment if a regulated substance
is released near schools, residential
areas, hospitals and childcare
facilities. RMPs shall include
procedures for keeping employees
and customers safe, the handling
Same Same LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-68 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
regulated substances, staff training,
equipment maintenance, checking
that substances are stored safely, and
responding to an accidental release.
Impact Haz-6: Exposure to
Contaminated Soil, Soil Vapor, and
Groundwater. As currently designed,
utilities and foundation slabs shall be
separated from landfill wastes by a
minimum of 4 feet of clean material,
however the potential for future
maintenance work to penetrate into
the subsurface where contamination
remains cannot entirely be
discounted. Soil and groundwater
disturbance presents an exposure
hazard to workers and trespassers.
Disturbance of the subsurface also
increases the potential for
contamination to spread through
surface water runoff, and through
wind blown dust. These impacts are
potentially significant.
Haz-6a: Development and
Implementation of Site Management
Plans. A Site Management Plan shall
be prepared that addresses the
exposure risk to people and the
environment resulting from future
demolition, construction, occupancy,
and maintenance activities on the
property. The plans for the landfill
portion of the OPSP shall be in
accordance with RWQCB order No.
00-046, the PCMP and
recommendations of the
Environmental Consultant, and shall
be reviewed and approved by the
RWQCB, DTSC, the SMCEHD
Groundwater Protection Program and
the City of South San Francisco
Public Works Department.
Specific mitigation measures
designed to protect human health and
the environment shall be provided in
the plan. At a minimum, the plan
shall include the following:
1) Requirements for site specific
Health and Safety Plans (HASP)
shall be prepared in accordance
with OSHA regulations by all
contractors at the OPSP area. This
includes a HASP for all
demolition, grading and
excavation on the site, as well as
for future subsurface maintenance
work. The HASP shall include
appropriate training, any required
personal protective equipment,
Impact Haz-6 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures Haz-6a through
Haz-6c are not applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-69
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
and monitoring of contaminants to
determine exposure. The HASP
shall be reviewed and approved
by a Certified Industrial
Hygienist. The plan shall also
designate provisions to limit
worker entry and exposure and
shall show locations and type of
protective fencing to prevent
public exposure to hazards during
demolition, site grading, and
construction activities.
2) Requirements for site-specific
construction techniques that
would minimize exposure to any
subsurface contamination shall be
developed. This shall include
dewatering techniques to
minimize direct exposure to
groundwater during construction
activities, treatment and disposal
measures for any contaminated
groundwater removed from
excavations, trenches, and
dewatering systems in accordance
with local and Regional Water
Quality Control Board guidelines.
Groundwater encountered in
excavations shall not be
discharged into the neighboring
storm drain, but into a closed
containment facility, unless
proven to have concentrations of
contaminants below established
regulatory guidelines. Extracted
contaminated groundwater shall
be required to be stored in tanks
or other sealed container until
tested. If testing determines that
the water can be discharged into
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-70 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
the sanitary sewer system, then
the applicant shall acquire a
ground water discharge permit
from the City of South San
Francisco Sanitary Sewer District
and meet local discharge limits
before being allowed to discharge
into the sanitary sewer. Water
shall be analyzed for the
chemicals of concern at the site,
including benzene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes, chlorobenzene,
naphthalene and additional
compounds as requested by the
receiving facility or the City of
South San Francisco.
3) Waste relocation. Relocation or
removal of existing landfill
waste/refuse will be required for
landfill cap upgrades and for site
construction. Excavated waste can
either be re-deposited on site or
disposed of at an active landfill
facility. Off-site disposal will
require pre-characterization of the
waste for acceptance at an
approved waste disposal facility.
Waste manifests will be prepared
to document transportation and
disposal. On-site disposal shall
require proper placement,
compaction, and capping of the
refuse material. In either case,
segregation of Class 2 and Class 3
from Class 1 material for disposal
purposes shall be performed on-
site to the extent possible. No
Class 1 material shall be relocated
or re-deposited on-site.
BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 34
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-71
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
section 118 documents a limited
exemption for construction
activities at landfill sites. This
section specifies that when the
construction activities are related
to “installing, expanding,
replacing, or repairing
components of the landfill gas,
leachate, or gas condensate
collection and removal systems.”
Excavation for cap upgrades falls
under this exemption. Excavation
for construction purposes will also
likely fall under this exemption.
As such it will be necessary to
provide BAAQMD with
construction plans and other
documentation as detailed under
this regulation for the purposes of
obtaining a letter of exemption
from BAAQMD. Excavation
procedures are also discussed in
Measure Haz-2.
4) Future subsurface work plan. The
plan shall document procedures
for future subsurface landscaping
work, utility maintenance, etc.,
with proper notification, where
applicable. The plan shall include
a general health and safety plan
for each expected type of work,
with appropriate personal
protective equipment, where
applicable. This plan may be
included in the operations and
maintenance plan as appropriate.
Haz-6b: Landfill Gas System.
Section 21160 of Title 27 of the CCR
requires that closed landfills
implement and maintain landfill gas
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-72 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
control. A landfill gas (LFG) venting
system shall be placed under the
bottom slabs of each structure built
entirely or partially over landfill
material, to collect and vent the build
up of gases diffusing through the
landfill cap. The LFG system shall
include spray-applied vapor barrier
membranes, horizontal collection and
passive venting, gas detection and
monitoring. The system shall either
have backup active collection and
venting or shall be designed to
facilitate retrofitting with an active
system, if measures warrant the
retrofit. Potential migration of LFG
into the building space shall be
mitigated by the collection and
venting system, and secondly by the
spray-applied membrane. Subsurface
landfill gases shall be vented by a
network of perforated piping placed
beneath the building slabs. The
exhaust gases shall be manifolded to
a series of riser piping that is to be
vented above structure roofs. Passive
landfill gas systems do not require
permits, however if an active system
is installed, either at the time of
construction or as part of a retrofit, a
BAAQMD permit will be needed.
Haz-6c: Non-use of Groundwater.
Water supply wells shall not be
installed at the site. This will prevent
direct contact between the public and
site groundwater and leachate.
Haz-6d: San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department
Closure of Existing Facilities. Any
businesses on the site that are
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-73
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
currently registered in the hazardous
materials business plan program shall
submit a closure work plan in
accordance with the SMCEHD
Business Closure Policy prior to
vacating the property. The closure
plan shall detail any necessary
sampling and remediation. Closure
shall not be granted until businesses
have demonstrated there is no need
for further remediation, and shall
include documentation of the
removal of any hazardous chemicals.
Impact Haz-7 Airport Land Use
Plan. The OPSP would be located
within the jurisdiction of the Airport
Land Use Plan for the San Francisco
International Airport. According to
the East of 101 area plan, the most
stringent height limits in South San
Francisco are south of Forbes
Boulevard and Lindenville (the area
between Railroad Avenue, South
Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo
Avenue), which is south of the site.
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part
77, limits building heights to an
elevation of 161 feet above mean sea
level, approximately 12 to 14 stories,
in the most restricted areas, increasing
at a slope of 20:1 to a height of 361
feet above mean sea level. Since the
tallest building portion would not
exceed 161 feet in height, the OPSP
would be in compliance with the
Airport Land Use Plan. The impact of
the OPSP on the Airport Land Use
Plan is less-than-significant with no
mitigation warranted.
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Haz-7 Airport Land
Use Plan. The OPSP would be
located within the jurisdiction of the
Airport Land Use Plan for the San
Francisco International Airport.
According to the East of 101 area
plan, the most stringent height
limits in South San Francisco are
south of Forbes Boulevard and
Lindenville (the area between
Railroad Avenue, South Spruce
Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue),
which is south of the site. Federal
Aviation Regulations, Part 77,
limits building heights to an
elevation of 161 feet above mean
sea level, approximately 12 to 14
stories, in the most restricted areas,
increasing at a slope of 20:1 to a
height of 361 feet above mean sea
level. Since the tallest building
portion would not exceed 161 feet
in height, Building heights in the
OPSP would be in compliance with
the Airport Land Use Plan. The
impact of the OPSP on the Airport
Land Use Plan is less-than-
Same LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-74 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
significant with no mitigation
warranted.
Impact Haz-8: Cumulative Hazardous
Impacts. The OPSP would be one of
numerous sites, some of which are
also existing hazardous materials sites
that are anticipated to undergo
development/redevelopment in the
vicinity. The OPSP would contribute
to a cumulative increase in the
number of sites handling hazardous
materials, and would result in a
cumulative increase in transportation,
use, disposal, and potential for
exposure to and/or accidental release
of hazardous materials during both
construction and operations.
However, the cumulative impact is
expected to be slight and identified
project-specific mitigation measures
would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level with no
additional mitigation required.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
Hydrology
Impact Hydro-1: Potential
Contamination of Off-Site Waters due
to Leachate Migration. The OPSP
area is located within the historical
limits of the Bay. Subsurface water at
the site is underlain by Bay Mud and
has a low-hydraulic conductivity cap,
which confines the groundwater.
Based on ongoing monitoring at the
site, leachate, which has elevated
contaminant concentrations from the
landfill material, is not migrating off-
site. Re-development of the site shall
require excavation of a portion of the
landfill cap, and shall require deep
Hydro-1: Best Management Practices
(BMPs) shall be used during
installation of foundation piers to
reduce the potential for gaps in the
subsurface confining layers around
the piers. BMP requirements shall be
identified in the SWPPP and shall be
developed by the applicant or their
authorized representative. The exact
BMPs to be implemented shall
depend on final pier design and type,
but can include pre-drilling and
grouting of concrete piers, use of
hollow steel piers, or other methods
to reduce the risk of displaced refuse
Impact Hydro-1 is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 is not
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-75
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
foundation piers which may penetrate
the Bay Mud. The potential for off-
site migration of leachate as a result
of modification the landfill cap and
underlying Bay Mud represents a
potentially significant impact.
creating a void in the Bay Mud layer.
The proposed BMPs shall be
benchmarked against the California
Department of Transportation
Stormwater Quality Handbooks
Construction Site Best Management
Practices (BMPs) Manual (2003 and
associated updates).
Mitigation Measure Haz-4a: Landfill
Cap Upgrades would also reduce
impact Hydro-1 through repair and
upgrade of the cap which will act to
minimize generation of leachate.
Mitigation Measure Haz-4d and 4e:
Monitoring for Leachate Migration
and Operation and Maintenance
Activities would also reduce impact
Hydro-1 through requirements for
post-construction monitoring for
leachate migration, with repairs to
prevent migration completed on an as
needed basis.
Impact Hydro-2: Potential
Construction and Post-construction
Contamination of Bay Waters:
Construction activities at the site will
create temporary and long term
alterations of the site terrain, creating
potential erosion concerns. The
migration of laboratory and parking
lot pollutants into the bay could
potentially impair water quality. This
represents a potentially significant
impact.
Hydro-2: Preparation and
Implementation of Project SWPPP.
Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the
applicant of a project under the OPSP
shall develop a SWPPP to protect
water quality during construction.
If the SWPP will be developed after
September 2, 2011, the SWPPP shall
be developed by a California
Qualified SWPPP Developer in
accordance with the State Water
Resources Control Board
Construction General Permit 2009-
009-DWQ. The project SWPPP shall
include, but is not limited, to the
following mitigation measures for the
construction period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be
Same Same LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-76 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
allowed with the appropriate
SWPPP measures during the wet
season (October 1 through April
30) and such work shall be
stopped before pending storm
events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization
techniques such as straw
mulching, erosion control
blankets, erosion control matting,
and hydro-seeding, shall be
utilized in accordance with the
regulations outlined in the
Association of Bay Area
Governments “Erosion &
Sediment Control Measures”
manual. Silt fences shall be
installed down slope of all graded
slopes. Hay bales shall be
installed in the flow path of
graded areas receiving
concentrated flows and around
storm drain inlets.
3) BMPs to be developed by the
applicant shall be used for
preventing the discharge or other
construction-related NPDES
pollutants beside sediment (i.e.
paint, concrete, etc) to
downstream waters.
4) After construction is completed,
all drainage facilities shall be
inspected for accumulated
sediment and these drainage
structures shall be cleared of
debris and sediment.
In accordance with the handbook
C.3 Stormwater Technical
Guidance, Version 2, permanent
mitigation measures for
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-77
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
stormwater shall be submitted as
part of project application
submittals with the Planning
Permit Application and the
Building Permit Application.
Elements that shall be addressed
in the submittals include the
following:
5) Description of potential sources of
erosion and sediment at the OPSP
area. R&D activities and
significant materials and
chemicals that could be used at
the proposed OPSP area shall be
described. This shall include a
thorough assessment of existing
and potential pollutant sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be
implemented at the OPSP area
based on identified industrial
activities and potential pollutant
sources. Emphasis shall be placed
on source control BMPs, with
treatment controls used as needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and
implementation plan.
Maintenance requirements and
frequency shall be carefully
described including vector
control, clearing of clogged or
obstructed inlet or outlet
structures, vegetation/landscape
maintenance, replacement of
media filters, etc.
8) The monitoring and maintenance
program shall be conducted as
described in Haz-4e.
9) Proposed pervious and impervious
surfaces, including site design
measures to minimize impervious
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-78 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
surfaces and promote infiltration
(except where the landfill cover is
present).
10) Proposed locations and
approximate sizes of stormwater
treatment measures.
Impact Hydro-3: Erosion or Siltation
On- or Off-Site. Construction of the
proposed OPSP would involve
demolition of existing structural
foundations and will involve
excavation of both landfill waste
material and the earthen cap overlying
the waste. Construction operations
associated with the OPSP would
present a threat of soil erosion from
soil disturbance by subjecting
unprotected bare soil areas to the
erosional forces of runoff during
construction activities. This
represents a potentially significant
impact.
Hydro-3: Compliance with NPDES
Requirements. Applicants for a
project under the OPSP shall comply
with all Phase I NPDES General
Construction Activities permit
requirements established by the
CWA and the Grading Permit
requirements of the City of South
San Francisco. Erosion control
measures to be implemented during
construction shall be included in the
project SWPPP. The project SWPPP
shall accompany the NOI filing and
shall outline erosion control and
storm water quality management
measures to be implemented during
and following construction. The
SWPPP shall also provide the
schedule for monitoring
performance. Refer to Mitigation
Measure Hydro-2 for more
information regarding the project
SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I
NPDES General Construction
Activities permit requirements would
reduce construction-related impacts
associated with erosion and/or
siltation to less-than-significant.
Same Same LTS with MM
Impact Hydro-4: Risk of Flooding.
The OPSP is not located within the
vicinity of a levee, nor in a potential
flood path of a dam failure. The
OPSP is located on the coast of the
San Francisco Bay and therefore
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-79
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
could potentially be at risk of
flooding due to climate-induced sea
level rise. However, grading changes
proposed as a part of the Phase I
Project would reduce the potential of
flooding to a less-than-significant
impact.
Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by
Tsunami. Tsunamis, or tidal waves,
are huge sea waves that are caused by
seismic activity or other disturbance
of the ocean floor. Portions of South
San Francisco that are near the bay
and low-lying are considered to be at
risk for inundation by tsunami wave
run-up. Wave run up is estimated at 6
feet above mean sea level for a 500-
year tsunami. The margins of the
OPSP area immediately border the
bay waters. As such, a fringe of area
is at or below 6 feet above mean sea
level. However, development plans
to not include development of the
margins of the site that are at or
below 6 feet above mean sea level. In
addition, much of the shoreline of the
OPSP area is protected by rip-rap to
prevent damage to the shoreline by
wave run-up. Consequently, this
impact would be less-than-significant
with no mitigation required.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
Impact Hydro-6: Cumulative Impacts
on Hydrology and Water Quality. The
increased construction activity and
new development resulting from the
OPSP, in conjunction with other
foreseeable development in the city,
would result in less-than-significant
impacts on hydrology and water
quality conditions with no additional
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-80 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
mitigation measures necessary.
Land Use
No significant impact was previously
identified related to land use conflicts.
No mitigation warranted. New Impact Plan-1: Proposed
Residential Use Conflicts with
Some Policies. The proposed 2017
OPSP Update is not consistent with
the current General Plan land use
designation or zoning and such a
change in the proposed uses at the
site is not consistent with all
General Plan policies, which do not
promote housing in the East of 101
area. However, approval of the
2017 OPSP Update will include
rezoning and General Plan
amendments to bring the land use
and zoning into consistency. The
impact related to conflicts with
plans and policies would therefore
be less than significant.
No mitigation warranted. NI
revised to
LTS
Noise
Impact Noise-1: Noise Levels at
Proposed Uses. The OPSP will not
expose persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standard
established by the City of South San
Francisco. This is a less-than-
significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. New Impact Noise-1b: 2017 OPSP
Update On-Site Impacts from
Operational Equipment. When
added to existing noise levels in the
area, operational equipment
pursuant to implementation of the
2017 OPSP Update would generate
noise at proposed new residential
and commercial receivers and may
exceed the residential noise
compatibility requirements within
the Noise Element of the General
Plan and interior noise requirements
within Title 24, Part 2 of the
California Code of Regulations.
This impact is less-than-significant
with mitigation.
New Mitigation Measure
Noise-1: Acoustical Assessment of
2017 OPSP Update Area Air
Handling Equipment. An acoustical
assessment shall be completed for
development in the 2017 OPSP
Update area to ensure that heating
and cooling (e.g., HVAC) equipment
is selected, designed, and installed
such that exterior noise levels
comply with the noise limits
established in Chapter 8.32 of the
SSFMC (65 dBA CNEL) and
interior noise levels comply with the
interior noise compatibility
requirements within Title 24, Part 2
of the California Code of
Regulations (45 dBA CNEL). The
LTS
revised to
LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-81
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
acoustical assessment shall include
specific recommendations for
acoustic enclosures, noise barriers,
or other noise-mitigating measures,
if warranted. The same study also
shall evaluate parking garage
ventilation fans to ensure that they
are designed and installed to comply
with the same noise limits. If
warranted, the assessment also shall
specify the required orientation (i.e.,
acoustic directionality) of ventilation
fans at parking garages, so that they
are directed away from new on-site
residences and existing off-site live-
aboard boats.
Impact Noise-2: Projected Noise
Increases. Following construction, the
OPSP will not create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above
existing without the project. This is a
less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise
Increases. Traffic volumes along
roadways serving the OPSP area will
increase as a result of cumulative
growth planned in and around the
City of South San Francisco. The
OPSP would not make a
“cumulatively considerable”
contribution to cumulative traffic
noise increases at noise sensitive
receptors within the OPSP area. This
is a less-than-significant cumulative
impact.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
Impact Noise-4: Groundborne
Vibration. The OPSP is not
anticipated to expose persons to or
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-82 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.
This is a less-than-significant impact.
Impact Noise-5: Construction Noise.
The OPSP area includes existing
sensitive receptors consisting of live-
aboard boats in the marinas. In
periods of construction, during
construction hours, noise generated
by construction on the site would
substantially increase noise levels at
residential land uses in the vicinity of
the site temporarily above levels
existing without the project. This is a
significant impact.
Noise-5: Construction Noise. To
reduce noise levels generated by
construction, the following standard
construction noise control measures
shall be included in all construction
projects within the OPSP area.
• Equip all internal combustion
engine driven equipment with
intake and exhaust mufflers that
are in good condition and
appropriate for the equipment.
• Unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines should be
strictly prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise generating
equipment such as air compressors
or portable power generators as far
as possible from sensitive
receptors. Construct temporary
noise barriers to screen stationary
noise generating equipment when
located near adjoining sensitive
receptors. Temporary noise
barriers could reduce construction
noise levels by 5 dBA.
• Utilize "quiet" air compressors and
other stationary noise sources
where technology exists.
• Route all construction traffic to
and from the OPSP area via
designated truck routes where
possible. Prohibit construction
related heavy truck traffic in
residential areas where feasible.
• Control noise from construction
Same Revised Mitigation Measure Noise-
5: Construction Noise. To reduce
noise levels generated by
construction, the following standard
construction noise control measures
shall be included in all construction
projects within the OPSP area.
• Equip all internal combustion
engine driven equipment with
intake and exhaust mufflers that
are in good condition and
appropriate for the equipment,
and if necessary, intake and
exhaust silencers.
• Unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines should shall
be strictly prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise
generating equipment such as air
compressors or portable power
generators as far as possible from
sensitive receptors. Construct
temporary noise barriers to
screen stationary noise
generating equipment when
located near adjoining sensitive
receptors. Temporary noise
barriers could reduce
construction noise levels by 5
dBA.
• Utilize "quiet" air compressors
and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists.
• Route all construction traffic to
and from the OPSP area via
designated truck routes where
SU
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-83
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
workers’ radios to a point that they
are not audible at existing
residences bordering the OPSP
area.
• The contractor shall prepare and
submit to the City for approval a
detailed construction plan
identifying the schedule for major
noise-generating construction
activities.
• Designate a "disturbance
coordinator" who would be
responsible for responding to any
local complaints about
construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator will
determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early,
bad muffler, etc.) and will require
that reasonable measures
warr anted to correct the problem
be implemented. Conspicuously
post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the
construction site and include it in
the notice sent to neighbors
regarding the construction
schedule.
• For pile driving activities, consider
a) pre-drilling foundation pile
holes to minimize the number of
impacts required to seat the pile, b)
using multiple pile driving rigs to
expedite this phase of construction,
and/or c) the use of “acoustical
blankets” for receivers located
within 100 feet of the site.
possible. Prohibit construction
related heavy truck traffic in
residential areas where feasible.
• Control noise from construction
workers’ radios to a point that
they are not audible at existing
residences bordering the OPSP
area.
• The contractor shall prepare and
submit to the City for approval a
detailed construction plan
identifying the schedule for
major noise-generating
construction activities,
disturbance coordinator contact
information, and noise complaint
response procedures.
• Designate a "disturbance
coordinator" who would be
responsible for responding to any
local complaints about
construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator will
determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early,
bad muffler, etc.) and will require
that reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem
be implemented. Conspicuously
post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the
construction site and include it in
the notice sent to neighbors
regarding the construction
schedule.
• For pile driving activities, where
feasible, consider a) pre-drilling
foundation pile holes to minimize
the number of impacts required to
seat the pile, b) and use using
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-84 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
multiple pile driving rigs to
expedite this phase of
construction, and/or c) the use of
“acoustical blankets” for receivers
located within 100 feet of the site.
• For mobile equipment that
routinely operate near residences
(i.e., within approximately 200
feet), consider replacement of
typical fixed, pure-tone backup
alarms with ambient-sensing
and/or broadband backup alarms.
Impact Noise-6: Aircraft Noise.
Proposed uses developed at the site
would be exposed to intermittent
noise from aircraft associated with
San Francisco International Airport.
The exterior noise environment at the
OPSP area would be considered
compatible with proposed sensitive
uses. This is a less-than-significant
impact.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
Population, Public Services,
Impact Pop-1: Indirect Population
Growth. As a large employment
center, build-out of both Phase I
Project and the entire OPSP would
indirectly induce population growth
through creation of additional jobs.
However, these additional jobs would
help in part to correct job deficiencies
region-wide and the impact would be
considered less-than-significant.
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Pop-1: Direct and
Indirect Population Growth. As a
large employment center and
residential development, build-out
of both Phase I Project and the
entire OPSP would both directly
and indirectly induce population
growth through creation of housing
and additional jobs. However, these
additional jobs the inclusion of
housing would help in part to
correct job deficiencies local and
region-wide jobs-housing
imbalances and the impact would
be considered less-than-significant.
Same LTS
The 2011 EIR identified this as an No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Pop-2: Increased Same LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-85
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
LTS impact but had not included an
impact statement.
Public Service and Recreational
Demand. The Project would
increase the number of residents
and employees at the site, which
would increase the demand for
public services and recreational
demand. However, the Project
could be adequately served with
existing facilities or new facilities
to be constructed per City-wide
planning and the impact related to
public services and recreation
would be considered less than
significant.
Transportation and Circulation
Impact Traf-1: Trip Generation
Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak
Hours. Both the Phase I Project and
the entire OPSP would generate more
than 100 net new two-way trips
during the AM and PM peak hours
(1,402 trips during the AM peak hour
and 1,621 trips during the PM peak
hour at build out of the OPSP, as
shown in Table 16.19). The San
Mateo City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG) Agency
Guidelines for the implementation of
the 2003 Draft Congestion
Management Program (“C/CAG
Guidelines”) specifies that local
jurisdictions must ensure that the
developer and/or tenants will mitigate
all new peak hour trips (including the
first 100 trips) projected to be
generated by the development.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-1: Transportation Demand
Management Program. The OPSP
sponsors shall implement a
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program consistent with the
City of South San Francisco Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 20.400
Transportation Demand
Management, and acceptable to
C/CAG. These programs, once
implemented, must be ongoing for
the occupied life of the development.
The C/CAG guidelines specify the
number of trips that may be credited
for each TDM measure.
Revised Impact Traf-1: Trip
Generation Exceeds 100 Trips
During Peak Hours. The 2017
OPSP Update would generate more
than 100 net new two-way trips
during the AM and PM peak hours
(1,402 580 trips during the AM
peak hour and 1,621 595 trips
during the PM peak hour; see Table
16.16). The San Mateo City/County
Association of Governments
(C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for
the implementation of the 2003
Draft Congestion Management
Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”)
specifies that local jurisdictions
must ensure that the developer
and/or tenants will mitigate all new
peak hour trips (including the first
100 trips) projected to be generated
by the development.
This would be a significant impact.
Same LTS with MM
Impact Traf-2: Pedestrian Walkways.
Sidewalks will be provided along
Traf-2: Pedestrian Facilities. To
discourage mid-block crossing,
Revised Impact Traf-2: Pedestrian
Walkways. Sidewalks will be
Revised Traf-2: Pedestrian Facilities.
To discourage mid-block crossing,
LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-86 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
both sides of Oyster Point Boulevard
and Marina Boulevard internal to the
OPSP site. Sidewalks will also be
provided along both sides of all other
internal roadways connecting to
Marina Boulevard. The Phase I TDM
Conceptual Site Plan (June 1, 2010)
shows pedestrian connections
between OPSP buildings and the
sidewalks lining Oyster Point
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard. No
such detail has been provided by the
applicant for the other phases of
development.
No detail has been provided regarding
pedestrian access to the Phases III &
IV garage and whether pedestrian
access points are proposed that could
encourage midblock crossing.
These would be potentially significant
impacts.
pedestrian flow across Oyster Point
Boulevard between the Phase III &
IV garage and the Phase III & IV
offices shall be regulated to the
following extent.
• Pedestrian access shall only be
allowed at the north and south ends
of the garage, adjacent to
signalized or all-way stop
intersections.
provided along both sides of Oyster
Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard internal to the OPSP site.
Sidewalks will also be provided
along both sides of all other internal
roadways connecting to Marina
Boulevard. The Phase I TDM
Conceptual Site Plan (June 1, 2010)
shows pedestrian connections
between OPSP buildings and the
sidewalks lining Oyster Point
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard.
No such detail has been provided
by the applicant for the other phases
of development.
Pedestrian Facilities. The OPSP
would result in additional local area
pedestrian traffic internal and
adjacent to the OPSP site,
particularly along the Bay Trail,
to/from OPSP restaurants and
between OPSP residences and
nearby employment. Sidewalks will
be provided along both sides of
Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard internal to the OPSP site.
Sidewalks will also be provided
along both sides of all other internal
roadways connecting to Marina
Boulevard.
This would be a significant impact.
pedestrian flow across Oyster Point
Boulevard between the Phase III &
IV garage and the Phase III & IV
offices shall be regulated to the
following extent.
Pedestrian access shall only be
allowed at the north and south
ends of the garage, adjacent to
signalized or all-way stop
intersections.
As part of Precise Plan review and
approvals, the City will ensure that
development in the OPSP provides a
network of sidewalks connecting
Oyster Point Boulevard, Marina
Boulevard and all other internal
streets to all office R&D, residential,
and commercial buildings.
Impact Traf-3: Bicycle Lane. Class II
bicycle lanes will be provided along
Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard their entire lengths internal
to the OPSP site. The Bay Trail
bike/pedestrian path will also be
completed internal to the OPSP site.
The Phase I TDM conceptual site
plan shows that bike parking areas
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Traf-3: Bicycle
Lane. The OPSP would result in
additional local area bicycle traffic,
including residents’ and employees’
use of the Bay Trail and trips
to/from employment. Class II
bicycle lanes will be provided along
Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard their entire lengths
Same LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-87
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
will be provided within the building’s
garage.
These would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
internal to the OPSP site. The Bay
Trail bike/pedestrian path will also
be completed internal to the OPSP
site. The Phase I TDM conceptual
site plan shows that bike parking
areas will be provided within the
building’s garage. Internal bicycle
circulation and bicycle parking
areas will be provided to meet code
requirements, which will be
reviewed and approved as part of
Precise Plan review.
These would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
No significant impact was previously
identified related to shuttle service.
No mitigation warranted. New Impact Traf-4: Shuttle
Service. The OPSP will increase
demand for shuttle service by
employees and residents. However,
required TDM Plans will identify
usage of and contribution to shuttle
services and increased participation
in the program could improve cost
efficiency of shuttle service.
This would be a less-than-
significant impact.
Same NI
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-4: Year 2015 Internal
Circulation. Year 2015 Base Case +
Phase I Project and AM and PM peak
hour volumes and roadway
geometrics expected internal to the
project site along Oyster Point
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard
(with Phase I development) are
presented in Figure 16 in Appendix E.
Analysis has been conducted of the
Oyster Point Boulevard / Marina
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard /
No mitigation warranted. Previous Impact Traf-4 has been
deleted in entirety and replaced
with the following:
Revised Impact Traf-5: Internal
Circulation. The realigned Oyster
Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard intersection is proposed
to be signalized with the
realignment of those streets in the
OPSP area, which will occur with
Phase I development. The plan for
No mitigation warranted. LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-88 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Phase I access/Bayfront parking lot
intersections assuming all-way stop
control at each intersection. As shown
in Table 16.21 below, both
intersections should operate
acceptably with projected year 2015
volumes, including development of
the Phase I Project.
This would be a less-than-significant
impact, therefore no mitigation is
required.
other roadways and garage access
looks to be generally acceptable and
would be assessed on a design-level
as part of standard precise plan
approvals required for development
projects in the OPSP area, including
the 2017 OPSP Update area.
This would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
Impact Traf-5: Year 2035 Internal
Circulation. Year 2035 Base Case +
OPSP AM and PM peak hour
volumes expected internal to the
OPSP site along Oyster Point
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard
(with full OPSP development) are
presented in Appendix E, Figure 21,
while projected roadway geometrics
and control are presented in Appendix
E Figure 22. Operations analysis has
been conducted for the Oyster Point
Boulevard / Marina Boulevard,
Marina Boulevard / Phase I access /
Bayfront parking lot, Oyster Point
Boulevard / Phase II garage / Phases
III / IV garage and Oyster Point
Boulevard / North Access
intersections. The north intersection
includes an easterly extension of
Oyster Point Boulevard to serve a
secondary access to the OPSP Phases
III / IV garage as well as traffic from
two existing office buildings to the
east of the OPSP. The western leg of
the north access intersection will
provide access to the Oyster Cove
Marina to the west of the OPSP.
Based upon an iterative analysis
Traf-5: Internal Circulation System
Signalization.
• The OPSP applicant shall provide
signals at the Oyster Point
Boulevard / Marina Boulevard and
Oyster Point Boulevard / Phase II
Access / Phases III / IV garage
access intersections when volumes
are approaching warrant criteria
levels.
Impact reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Previous Impact Traf-5 deleted in
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-5, included above.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-89
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
process, it was determined that all-
way stop control would only provide
acceptable operation at the Marina
Boulevard / Phase I and Oyster Point
Boulevard / North Access
intersections. Signalization would be
required at the other two locations. At
City request, two access options were
evaluated for the OPSP Phases III /
IV garage to the east of Oyster Point
Boulevard.
As shown, all internal intersections
should function at acceptable AM and
PM peak hour levels of service with
the assumed geometrics and signal /
all-way stop control with either
Phases III / IV garage access Option 1
or 2. Failure of the applicant to
provide required signalization would
result in less than acceptable
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-6: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of Phase I Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.11).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would increase volumes by 9.11
percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case
operation.
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would degrade acceptable Base Case
LOS D operation to unacceptable
Traf-6: Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp (see
Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in
Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate the
Phase I Project-specific impacts. All
of these improvements (other than
measures to the Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp, the eastbound departure
and the southbound approach) are
included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and will be funded via
the Phase I Project’s traffic impact
fee contribution to this program. The
Phase I Project shall also provide a
fair share contribution towards all
Previous Impact Traf-6 has been
deleted in entirety and replaced
with the following:
Revised Impact Traf-6: Intersection
Level of Service. With the
exception of the Gateway
Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /
Mitchell Avenue intersection
discussed in Impact Traf-6, no
intersections would receive a
significant impact due to the
addition of OPSP traffic to existing
traffic.
These would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-90 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
LOS E operation.
This would be a significant impact.
measures currently not part of the
TIP.
• Adjust signal timing.
• Provide an additional through lane
on the Oyster Point westbound
approach (extending from Veterans
Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp intersection.
• Restripe the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach
from a left, 2 throughs and a
combined through/right turn lane
to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
• Restripe the Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp approach from 2
through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes
and a combined through/right turn
lane. In conjunction with this
measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point
Boulevard (not part of TIP).
• Add a second exclusive right turn
lane on the southbound Genentech
property driveway approach (not
part of TIP).
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I
Project Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-79.8 seconds
control delay, which is better than
LOS F 91.7 seconds control delay
Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.7 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-91
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Impact Traf-7: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of Phase I Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.11).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans
Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would increase volumes by 12.6
percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case
signalized operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-7: Oyster Point Boulevard /
Veterans Boulevard (see Table 16.23
and Figure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would
mitigate the Phase I Project-specific
impacts. These improvements are
included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
• Adjust signal timing.
• Restripe the two-lane northbound
driveway approach to provide an
exclusive left turn lane and a
combined left / through / right turn
lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I
Project Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS E-64.3 seconds
control delay (which would be better
than Base Case LOS F-88.5 seconds
control delay operation)
Previous Impact Traf-7 deleted in
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-6, included above.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-8: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of Phase I Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.11).
• Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport
Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would degrade acceptable LOS D
Base Case operation to unacceptable
LOS E Base Case + Phase I Project
signalized operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-8: Gateway Boulevard / S.
Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue.
(see Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in
Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate the
Phase I Project-specific impacts. This
improvement is included as part of
the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be
funded via the Phase I Project’s
traffic impact fee contribution to this
program.
1. Widen the southbound Gateway
Boulevard approach to provide a
second exclusive right turn lane.
The approach would contain one
Revised Impact Traf-87:
Intersection Level of Service. The
following intersection would
receive a significant impact due to
the addition of Phase I Project
OPSP traffic to year 2015 Base
Case + Phase I Project Without
OPSP existing volumes.
• Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport
Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would degrade acceptable LOS D
Base Case operation to
unacceptable LOS E Base Case +
Phase I Project signalized
Traf-87: Gateway Boulevard / S.
Airport Boulevard / Mitchell
Avenue. (see Table 16.23 and Figure
23 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate the
Phase I Project-specific OPSP
impacts. This improvement is
included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
• S. Airport Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
• Widen the southbound
LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-92 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
left turn lane, one through lane
and 2 exclusive right turn lanes.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I
Project Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
operation. OPSP traffic would
increase PM peak hour volumes by
4.2 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS E Without OPSP
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Gateway Boulevard approach
to provide a second exclusive
right turn lane. The approach
would contain one left turn
lane, one through lane and 2
exclusive right turn lanes.
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I
Project Signalized Existing With
OPSP Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 E-63-7
seconds control delay, which is
acceptable better operation than
without OPSP conditions.
Impact Traf-9: 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software
evaluation. The following off-
ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-
ramp would receive a significant
queuing impact due to the addition of
Phase I Project traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes (see Table 16.12).
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard
The Phase I Project would increase
volumes by 3.0 percent in the through
and combined/through right turn lane
on the Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach to Airport
Boulevard at a location with Base
Case 95th percentile queuing greater
than established standards. The
through lane or through/right turn
lane queue would be extended from
283 to 287 feet at a location with only
250 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-9: Improvements for Vehicle
Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impact. These improvements
are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program:
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Lanes
PM Peak Hour: Each westbound
through lane or westbound through /
right turn lane = 230 feet, which
would be within the available 250
feet of storage per lane.
Revised Impact Traf-98: 95th
Percentile Vehicle Queuing —
Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/ intersection or
approach to an adjacent intersection
leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing
impact due to the addition of Phase
I Project OPSP traffic to year 2015
Base Case existing volumes (see
Table 16.12).
• Airport Boulevard / Sister
Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard
The Phase I Project OPSP would
increase PM peak hour volumes by
3.0 2.6 percent in the through and
combined/ through/ right turn lanes
on the Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach to Airport
Boulevard at a location with Base
Case unacceptable Existing Without
OPSP 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
Revised Traf-98: Improvements for
Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 23 in
Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate the
Phase I Project-specific OPSP
impact on existing conditions. These
improvements are included in the
East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be
funded via the Phase I Project’s
OPSP’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program:
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Thru / Right
Turn Lanes
PM Peak Hour: Each The westbound
through or and through / right turn
lanes = 203 would have a resultant
95th percentile queue demand of 584
LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-93
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
The through lane or and
through/right turn lane queue would
be extended from 283 600 to 287
818 feet at a location with only 250
520 feet of storage.
feet, which would be less than
available 250 the Existing Without
OPSP queue demand and within the
available 600 feet of storage per lane
available.
Impact Traf-10: 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software
evaluation. The following approach to
an adjacent intersection leading away
from an off-ramp would receive a
significant queuing impact due to the
addition of Phase I Project traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.12).
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would increase volumes by 6.5
percent in the through lanes on the
Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach to Dubuque Avenue at a
location with Base Case 95th
percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The 95th
percentile vehicle queue would be
extended from 309 up to about 327
feet in a location with only 250 feet of
storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-10: Improvements for Vehicle
Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impact. These improvements
are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program:
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque
Avenue
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Eastbound Approach Through Lane
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through
lane queue = 206 feet, which is less
than the 309-foot Base Case queue.
Impact Traf-109: 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing — Synchro
software evaluation. The following
off-ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an
off-ramp would receive a
significant queuing impact due to
the addition of Phase I Project
OPSP traffic to year 2015 Base
Case existing volumes (see Table
16.12).
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101
Northbound On-Ramp
The Phase I Project OPSP would
increase AM peak hour volumes by
6.5 19.0 percent in the through right
turn lanes on the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound Dubuque
Avenue northbound approach to
Dubuque Avenue Oyster Point
Boulevard at a location with Base
Case acceptable Existing Without
OPSP 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
The 95th percentile vehicle right
turn lane queue would be extended
from 309 an acceptable 448 up to
about 327 554 feet at a location
with only 250 460 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-109: Improvements for Vehicle
Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific OPSP impact on existing
conditions. These improvements are
included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
Phase I Project’s OPSP’s traffic
impact fee contribution to this
program:
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101
Northbound On-Ramp
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Eastbound Approach Through Lane
Dubuque Avenue Northbound Right
Turn Lanes
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through
lane queue = The northbound right
turn lanes would have a resultant
95th percentile queue demand of
206460 feet, which is less than
would be equal to the 309-foot Base
Case queue available 460 feet of
storage.
LTS with MM
Impact Traf-11: Off-Ramp Queuing
To Freeway Mainline During Peak
Traffic Hours – SIM Traffic
Traf-11: Improvements for Off-Ramp
Queuing. The following
improvements would mitigate the
Previous Impact Traf-11 deleted in
entirety and replaced with the
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-94 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Evaluation The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the
freeway mainline sometime during
the AM peak hour due to the addition
of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes.
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would increase volumes on the
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp by 7.1
percent at a location with year 2015
Base Case off-ramp traffic
occasionally backing up to the
freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Phase I Project-specific impacts.
These improvements are not included
in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program.
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard (see Table
16.23 and Figure 23 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impacts. All of these
improvements (other than
measures to the Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp, eastbound
departure and southbound
approach) are included as part of
the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and
will be funded via the Phase I
Project’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program. The
Phase I Project shall also provide a
fair share contribution towards all
measures currently not part of the
TIP.
• Provide an additional through lane
on the Oyster Point westbound
approach (extending from Veterans
Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque / U.S.101 Northbound
On-Ramp intersection.
• Adjust signal timing.
• Restripe the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach
from a left, 2 throughs and a
combined through / right turn lane
to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
• Restripe the Southbound Flyover
following.
Revised Impact Traf-11: Off-Ramp
Operation. No off-ramp would
receive a significant impact due to
the addition of OPSP traffic to
Existing volumes.
This would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-95
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Off-Ramp approach from 2
through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes
and a combined through/right turn
lane. In conjunction with this
measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point
Boulevard (not part of TIP).
• Add a second exclusive right turn
lane on the southbound Genentech
property driveway approach (not
part of TIP).
Resultant Off-Ramp Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Backups to freeway
mainline eliminated.
Impact Traf-12: Off-Ramp Queuing
To Freeway Mainline During Peak
Traffic Hours – SIM Traffic
Evaluation The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the
freeway mainline sometime during
the AM peak hour due to the addition
of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would increase volumes on the off-
ramp by 12.8 percent at a location
with year 2015 Base Case off-ramp
traffic occasionally backing up to the
freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-12: Improvements for Off-Ramp
Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impacts. These
improvements are included in the
East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be
funded via the Phase I Project’s
traffic impact fee contribution to this
program.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant Off-Ramp Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Backups to freeway
mainline eliminated.
Previous Impact Traf-12 deleted in
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-11, above.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-13: Off-Ramp Operation
At Mainline Diverge. The following
off-ramp diverge location from the
U.S.101 freeway mainline would
Traf-13: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge.
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard
Previous Impact Traf-13 deleted in
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-11, above.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-96 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
receive a significant impact due to the
addition of Phase I Project traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.6).
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would increase volumes by 8.2
percent at a location where Base Case
diverge volumes would already be
exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour
(from 1,618 up to 1,750 VPH).
This would be a significant impact.
No improvements are feasible to
mitigate Phase I Project-specific
impacts. The spacing of southbound
off-ramp connections to Airport
Boulevard and to Oyster Point
Boulevard precludes the possibility
of providing a second off-ramp lane
connection to southbound U.S.101 to
serve the Oyster Point Boulevard
southbound off-ramp. A second off-
ramp lane connection to the freeway
mainline would require a long
(1,000-foot or longer) deceleration
lane with only 300 feet of available
space. There is no room for provision
of this lane.
Impact Traf-14: Off-Ramp Operation
At Mainline Diverge. The following
off-ramp diverge location from the
U.S.101 freeway mainline would
receive a significant impact due to the
addition of Phase I Project traffic to
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.6).
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project
would increase volumes above the
1,500 VPH limit for single lane off-
ramp diverge volumes (from 1,356 up
to 1,536 VPH).
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-14: Improvements for Off-Ramp
Operation At Mainline Diverge. (see
Figure 23 in Appendix E).
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue
• Provide a second off-ramp lane
connection to the U.S.101
mainline. Off-ramp diverge
capacity would be increased to at
least 2,200 vehicles per hour,
which would accommodate the
Base Case + Phase I Project AM
peak hour volume of 1,536
vehicles per hour. This measure
will require the approval of
Caltrans. Also, this measure is
currently not included in the East
of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It
should be noted that because the
improvement is within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the
project, cannot guarantee that the
Previous Impact Traf-14 deleted in
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-11, above.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-97
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
mitigation will be implemented
While it is likely that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead
agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA
purposes, this impact is considered
to be significant and unavoidable.
Impact Traf-15: On-Ramp Operation.
Phase I Project traffic would not
produce a significant impact at any
on-ramp (see Table 16.7).
This would be a less-than-significant
impact, therefore no mitigation is
required.
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Traf-1512: On-
Ramp Operation. Phase I Project
OPSP traffic would not produce a
significant impact at any on-ramp
(see Table 16.7).
This would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
No mitigation warranted. LTS
Impact Traf-16: Freeway Mainline
Operation. No U.S.101 mainline
segment would receive a significant
impact due to the addition of Phase I
Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes. Operation would remain
LOS D or better at all locations (see
Table 16.13).
This would be a less-than-significant
impact, therefore no mitigation is
required.
No mitigation warranted. Impact Traf-1610: Freeway
Mainline Operation. No U.S.101
freeway mainline segment would
receive a significant impact due to
the addition of Phase I Project
OPSP traffic to year 2015 Base
Case Existing volumes.
This would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
No mitigation warranted. LTS
Impact Traf-17: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
Traf-17: Intersection Level of
Service. There are no improvements
feasible to mitigate the OPSP-
specific impacts.
Impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Revised Impact Traf-1716:
Intersection Level of Service. The
following intersection would
receive a significant impact due to
the addition of OPSP traffic to year
2035 Base Case 2040 Without
OPSP volumes (see Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101
Revised Traf-1716: Intersection
Level of Service. The following
measure would provide acceptable
operation, but is not included as part
of the current East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The OPSP shall
provide a fair share contribution
towards these measures if
determined feasible by the City.
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
SU
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-98 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base
Case operation to unacceptable (LOS
E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Northbound On-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would
degrade acceptable Without OPSP
LOS D operation to an
unacceptable LOS E (and increase
volumes by 7.6%).
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base
Case operation to unacceptable
(LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp
The following improvement is not
included in the East of 101 TIP. A
portion of the widening
improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, and the City of South
San Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
following mitigation will be
implemented:
o Widen the south side of the
Oyster Point Boulevard
overpass to provide one
additional eastbound through
lane.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP
operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-40.5
seconds delay
As indicated above, because the
improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented.
While it is possible that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes,
this iImpact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Impact Traf-18: Intersection Level of
Service. The following improvements
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Traf-18: Intersection Level of
Service (see Figure 24 in Appendix
E). The following improvements
would partially mitigate OPSP-
specific impacts, but not reduce them
Revised Impact Traf-1813:
Intersection Level of Service. The
following intersection would
receive a significant impact due to
the addition of OPSP traffic to year
Revised Traf-1813: Intersection
Level of Service (see Figure 24 in
Appendix E). The following
improvements would partially
mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but
SU
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-99
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 22.7 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 22.5 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
to a level of insignificance. Some of
these measures are not included as
part of the current East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The OPSP shall
provide a fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
• Adjust signal timing.
• Provide an additional through lane
on the Oyster Point westbound
approach (extending from Veterans
Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp intersection.
• Restripe the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach
from a left, 2 throughs and a
combined through/right turn lane
to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
• Restripe the Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp approach from 2
through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes
and a combined through/right turn
lane. In conjunction with this
measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point
Boulevard (not part of TIP).
• Add a second exclusive right turn
lane on the southbound Genentech
property driveway approach (not
part of TIP).
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
2035 Base Case 2040 Without
OPSP volumes (see Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101
Southbound Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 22.7 10.0
percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS E 2040 Without
OPSP F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 22.5 percent at
a location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
would not reduce them to a level of
insignificance provide acceptable
operation. Some of these measures
are not included as part of the
current East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The
OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards all measures
currently not part of the TIP
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101
Southbound Off-Ramp
The following improvement is
included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP):
o Adjust signal timing.
The following improvements are not
included in the East of 101 TIP. A
portion of the widening
improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, and the City of South
San Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
following mitigation will be
implemented:
o Provide an additional through
lane on the Oyster Point
westbound approach
(extending from Veterans
Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound
On-Ramp intersection. Add a
second right turn lane to the
Gateway Boulevard
northbound approach.
o Restripe the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach
from a left, 2 throughs and a
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-100 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-194 seconds
control delay, which would not be
better than Base Case operation (LOS
F-124 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS F-118 seconds
control delay, which would not be
better than Base Case operation (LOS
F-108 seconds delay).
combined through/right turn
lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
o Restripe the Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp approach
from 2 through lanes and an
exclusive right turn lane to two
through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In
conjunction with this measure,
add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point
Boulevard (not part of TIP).
Provide northbound right turn
overlap signal phasing in
conjunction with westbound
left turn movements.
o Add a second exclusive right
turn lane on the southbound
Genentech property driveway
approach (not part of TIP).
Widen the southbound off-
ramp intersection approach to
provide an additional lane.
Stripe the approach to provide
two through lanes, a shared
through/right turn lane and an
exclusive right turn lane. This
measure would potentially
require widening of part of the
off-ramp structure. It would
also require provision of a
third eastbound departure lane
for off-ramp traffic, which
would require additional right-
of-way on the southeast corner
of the intersection.
Resultant Base Case + OPSP 2040
With OPSP operation:
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-101
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-194 D-45.8
seconds control delay, which would
not be better than Base Case
operation (LOS F-124 seconds
delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS F-118 seconds
control delay, which would not be
better than Base Case operation
(LOS F-108 seconds delay).
As indicated above, because the
improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented.
While it is possible that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes,
this iImpact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Impact Traf-19: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans
Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 14.4 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base
Case operation to unacceptable (LOS
F) operation.
Traf-19: Intersection Level of
Service. (see Figure 24 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts and reduce them to a level of
insignificance. These measures are
currently not included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP
shall provide a fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans
Boulevard
• Restripe the northbound 2-lane
private driveway approach to
Previous Impact Traf-19 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-102 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
This would be a significant impact. contain an exclusive left turn lane
and a combined left / through /
right turn lane.
• Widen the eastbound Oyster Point
Boulevard approach and provide
an exclusive right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-52.6 seconds
control delay, which would not be
acceptable operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-36.8 seconds
control delay, which would be
acceptable operation.
Impact Traf-20: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
degrade acceptable (LOS B) Base
Case operation to unacceptable (LOS
F) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-20: Intersection Level of
Service. (see Figure 24 in Appendix
E) The following improvement
would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. This measure is currently
not included as part of the East of
101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards all
measures currently not part of the
TIP
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles
Avenue
• Provide an exclusive right turn
lane on the eastbound Oyster Point
Boulevard approach.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.3 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
Previous Impact Traf-20 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-21: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
Traf-21: Intersection Level of
Service. (see Figure 25 in Appendix
E) The following improvement
Previous Impact Traf-21 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-103
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Airport Boulevard / Grand
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 1.3 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 1.8 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E
Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
would partially mitigate OPSP-
specific impacts, but not reduce them
to a level of insignificance. This
measure is currently not included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP
shall provide a fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
• Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
• Adjust signal timing.
• Restripe the 2-lane eastbound
Grand Avenue approach to provide
an exclusive left turn lane and a
combined left / through / right turn
lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-63.4 seconds
control delay, which is better than
Base Case operation (LOS F-81.6
seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS E-59.6 seconds
control delay, which is better than
Base Case operation (LOS E-60.7
seconds delay).
the updated analysis.
LTS
Impact Traf-22: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• E. Grand Avenue / Gateway
Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 4.0 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation.
Traf-22: Intersection Level of
Service. (see Figure 25 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. These measures are
currently not included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP
shall provide a fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
• E. Grand Avenue / Gateway
Previous Impact Traf-22 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-104 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base
Case operation to unacceptable (LOS
E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Boulevard
• Restripe the southbound Gateway
Boulevard approach to contain 1
left turn lane, 1 through lane, a
combined through / right turn lane
and an exclusive right turn lane.
Also restripe the northbound
Gateway Boulevard approach to
contain a left turn lane, a combined
through / right turn lane and an
exclusive right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-86.0 seconds
control delay, which is better than
Base Case operation (LOS F-121
seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-43.1 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
Impact Traf-23: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• E. Grand Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard / Harbor Way
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 2.8 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 4.1 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E
Base Case operation. In addition,
operation would be degraded to LOS
F.
Traf-23: Intersection Level of
Service. (see Figure 25 in Appendix
E) The following improvements
would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. These measures are
currently not included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP
shall provide a fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
• E. Grand Avenue / Forbes
Boulevard / Harbor Way
• Adjust signal timing.
• Restripe the southbound Forbes
Boulevard approach to contain 2
exclusive right turn lanes, a
through lane and a combined
Previous Impact Traf-23 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-105
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
This would be a significant impact. through / left turn lane.
• Restripe the northbound Harbor
Way approach to contain 2
exclusive right turn lanes, a
combined through / left turn lane
and an exclusive left turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-52.2 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-24.6 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
Impact Traf-24: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Airport Boulevard / San Mateo
Avenue / Produce Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base
Case operation to unacceptable (LOS
E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-24: Intersection Level of
Service. (see Figure 25 in Appendix
E) The following improvement
would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. This measure is currently
not included as part of the East of
101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards all
measures currently not part of the
TIP.
• Airport Boulevard / San Mateo
Avenue / Produce Avenue
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-44.9 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
Previous Impact Traf-24 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-25: Intersection Level of
Service. The following intersection
would receive a significant impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Traf-25: Intersection Level of
Service. (see Figure 25 in Appendix
E) The following improvement
would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. This measure is currently
Previous Impact Traf-25 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. LTS with MM
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-106 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Table 16.16).
• S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101
Northbound Hook Ramps /
Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 2.4 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E
Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
not included as part of the East of
101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards all
measures currently not part of the
TIP.
• S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101
Northbound Hook Ramps /
Wondercolor Lane
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.9 seconds
control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
No significant impact was previously
identified at this intersection under
future year conditions.
No mitigation warranted. New Impact Traf-13: Intersection
Level of Service. The following
intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the
addition of OPSP traffic to year
2040 Without OPSP volumes.
• Forbes Boulevard / Allerton
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would
degrade operation from an
acceptable LOS D to an
unacceptable LOS E.
PM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would
increase volumes by 4 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E
Without OPSP operation.
This would be a significant impact.
New Traf-13: Intersection Level of
Service. The following improvement
would mitigate project-specific
impacts. This measure is currently
included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program. The project shall provide a
fair share contribution towards this
measure.
• Forbes Boulevard / Allerton
Avenue
Signalize the intersection.
Resultant 2040 + 2017 OPSP Update
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-53.4
seconds control delay.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-36-3
seconds control delay.
LTS
revised to
LTS with MM
No significant impact was previously
identified at this intersection under
future year conditions.
No mitigation warranted. New Impact Traf-14: Intersection
Level of Service. The following
intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the
addition of OPSP traffic to year
New Traf-14: Intersection Level of
Service. The following measures are
not included as part of the current
East of 101 Transportation
LTS
revised to
SU
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-107
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
2040 Without OPSP volumes.
• Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 3.1 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F
Without OPSP operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Improvement Program (TIP).
• Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road
The following improvement is not
included in the East of 101 TIP.
Given the location of the additional
eastbound lane and its close
proximity to surrounding
development, including a City Pump
Station, and due to constraints of
adjacent bike lanes and landscaping,
the following improvement is not
feasible:
• The addition of a second eastbound
lane on the Forbes Boulevard
approach and a second eastbound
departure lane would improve
operation to an acceptable level.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP
operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.2
seconds delay
While the above improvement would
reduce the impact to less-than-
significant, such mitigation is not
feasible due to site constraints listed
above. This impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
No significant impact was previously
identified at this intersection under
future year conditions.
No mitigation warranted. New Impact Traf-15: Intersection
Level of Service. The following
intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the
addition of OPSP traffic to year
2040 Without OPSP volumes.
• Forbes Boulevard / Allerton
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would
degrade operation from an
acceptable LOS D to an
New Traf-15: Intersection Level of
Service. The following improvement
would mitigate project-specific
impacts. This measure is currently
included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
OPSP traffic impact fee contribution
to this program.
• Forbes Boulevard / Allerton
Avenue
LTS
revised to
LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-108 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
unacceptable LOS E.
PM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would
increase volumes by 2.7 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E
Without OPSP operation.
This would be a significant impact.
o Signalize the intersection.
o Add a third lane to the Forbes
Boulevard eastbound
approach. Stripe the approach
with single left, through and
right turn lanes.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-24.9
seconds control delay.
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-22.8 seconds
control delay.
Impact Traf-26: 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software
evaluation. The following off-ramp or
approach to an adjacent intersection
leading away from an off-ramp would
receive a significant queuing impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.17).
• Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway
Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 54.6 percent in
the through lanes on the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach to
Gateway Boulevard and increase the
95th percentile queue above available
storage. The 95th percentile vehicle
queue would be extended from 756
up to about 1,200 feet with only 900
feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-26: Vehicle Queuing (see Figure
24 in Appendix E). The following
improvements would partially
mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but
not reduce them to a level of
insignificance. All of these
improvements (other than measures
to the Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp, the eastbound departure and
the southbound approach) are
included as part of the current East of
101 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The OPSP shall also
provide a fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
• Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway
Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
• Adjust signal timing.
• Provide an additional through lane
on the Oyster Point westbound
approach (extending from Veterans
Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp intersection.
Revised Impact Traf-2617: 95th
Percentile Vehicle Queuing —
Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp or approach to
an adjacent intersection leading
away from an off-ramp would
receive a significant queuing impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic
to year 2035 Base Case 2040
Without OPSP volumes (see
Table 16.17).
• Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway
Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 54.610.4
percent in the through lanes on the
Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach to Gateway Boulevard
and increase the 95th percentile
queue above available storage. The
95th percentile vehicle queues
would be extended from 756 3,160
up to about 1,200 3,608 feet with
only 900 2,800 feet of storage (total
all lanes).
Revised Traf-2617: Vehicle Queuing
(see Figure 24 in Appendix E). The
following improvements would
partially mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts provide acceptable
operation, but not reduce them to a
level of insignificance. These
measures are not all included as part
of the current East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The OPSP shall also
provide fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
• Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway
Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
The following improvement is
included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP):
o Adjust signal timing.
The following improvements are not
included in the East of 101 TIP. A
portion of the widening
improvements are within Caltrans’
SU
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-109
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
• Restripe the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach
from a left, 2 throughs and a
combined through/right turn lane
to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
• Restripe the Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp approach from 2
through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes
and a combined through/right turn
lane. In conjunction with this
measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point
Boulevard (not part of TIP).
• Add a second exclusive right turn
lane on the southbound Genentech
property driveway approach (not
part of TIP).
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through
95th percentile queue would be
reduced to 1,102 feet, which would
not be less than the Base Case queue
of 756 feet.
This would be a significant impact. jurisdiction, and the City of South
San Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
following mitigation will be
implemented:
o Provide an additional through
lane on the Oyster Point
westbound approach
(extending from Veterans
Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound
On-Ramp intersection. Add a
second right turn lane to the
Gateway Boulevard
northbound approach.
o Restripe the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach
from a left, 2 throughs and a
combined through/right turn
lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
o Restripe the Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp approach
from 2 through lanes and an
exclusive right turn lane to two
through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In
conjunction with this measure,
add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point
Boulevard (not part of
TIP).Provide northbound right
turn overlap signal phasing in
conjunction with westbound
left turn movements.
o Add a second exclusive right
turn lane on the southbound
Genentech property driveway
approach (not part of TIP).
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-110 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Widen the southbound off-
ramp intersection approach to
provide an additional lane.
Stripe the approach to provide
two through lanes, a shared
through/right turn lane and an
exclusive right turn lane. This
measure would potentially
require widening of part of the
off-ramp structure. It would
also need provision of three
eastbound departure lanes for
off-ramp traffic, which would
require additional right-of-way
on the southeast corner of the
intersection.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
2040 With OPSP Queuing
AM Peak Hour: The
Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
through approach lanes 95th
percentile queue would be reduced
to 1,102 2,604 feet, which would not
be within less than the Base Case
queue of 756 feet available storage
of 2,800 feet.
As indicated above, because the
improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented.
While it is possible that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes,
this iImpact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-111
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Impact Traf-27: 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software
evaluation. The following off-
ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-
ramp would receive a significant
queuing impact due to the addition of
OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.17).
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 14.2 percent in
the through lanes on the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound approach to
Dubuque Avenue at a location with
Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
The eastbound through lane queue
would be extended from 586 up to
637 feet at a location with only 250
feet of storage. In addition, the queue
lanes on the northbound Dubuque
Avenue approach to Oyster Point
Boulevard would be increased beyond
available storage (from 78 up to about
351 feet at a location with only 210
feet of available storage).
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 21.9 percent on
the Oyster Point eastbound approach
to Dubuque Avenue at a location with
Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
The eastbound through lane queue
would be extended from 302 up to
376 feet at a location with only 250
feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-27: Vehicle Queuing. No
improvements are feasible to mitigate
OPSP-specific impacts.
Revised Impact Traf-2718: 95th
Percentile Vehicle Queuing —
Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an
adjacent intersection leading away
from an off-ramp would receive a
significant queuing impact due to
the addition of OPSP traffic to year
2035 Base Case 2040 Without
OPSP volumes (see Table 16.17).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque
Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp/ U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 14.2 1.8
percent in the through lanes on the
Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach to Dubuque Avenue at a
location with unacceptable Without
OPSP Base Case 95th percentile
queuing greater than established
standards. The eastbound through
lane queue storage demand would
be extended from 586 1,094 up to
637 1,599 feet at a location with
only 250 725 feet of total storage.
In addition, the queue lanes on the
northbound Dubuque Avenue
approach to Oyster Point Boulevard
would be increased beyond
available storage The OPSP would
also increase volumes by 16.2
percent in the northbound Dubuque
Avenue right turn lanes where the
Without OPSP 95th percentile
queue demand would already be
exceeding available storage (from
78 1,288 up to 351 1,572 feet at a
location with only 250 460 feet of
Revised Traf-2718: Vehicle
Queuing. No improvements are
feasible to mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. The following improvement
would provide acceptable operation,
but is not included as part of the
current East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The
OPSP shall also provide fair share
contribution towards this measure if
determined feasible by the City.
• Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp
The following improvement is not
included in the East of 101 TIP. A
portion of the widening
improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, and the City of South
San Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
following mitigation will be
implemented:
o Widen the south side of the
Oyster Point Boulevard
overpass to provide one
additional eastbound through
lane.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP
operation
AM & PM Peak Hours – All lanes
with significant impacts would have
95th percentile queuing reduced to
less than without OPSP conditions.
As indicated above, because the
improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
SU
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-112 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
total storage).
PM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point
Boulevard The eastbound approach
through lanes queues would be
extended have 95th percentile
storage demand increased above
available storage (from 302 685 up
to 376 756 feet with 250 725 feet of
total storage). In addition, the
Oyster Point Boulevard westbound
approach left turn lane would have
95th percentile storage demand
increased above available storage
(from 1,340 up to 1,460 feet with
1,375 feet of total storage).
This would be a significant impact.
mitigation will be implemented.
While it is possible that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes,
this impact would remain significant
and unavoidable
Impact Traf-28: 95th Percentile
Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software
evaluation. The following off-
ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-
ramp would receive a significant
queuing impact due to the addition of
OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.17).
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 7.1 percent in the
left turn lane on the Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound approach to
Airport Boulevard at a location with
Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
The left turn lane queue would be
extended from 256 up to 273 feet at a
location with only 140 feet of storage.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
Traf-28: Improvements for Vehicle
Queuing. (see Figure 24 in Appendix
E) The following improvement
would mitigate the OPSP-specific
impact. This improvement is
included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
OPSP’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program:
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Lanes
AM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue
= 242 feet, with a Base Case 95th
percentile queue of 250 feet.
PM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue
= 506 feet, with a Base Case 95th
Revised Impact Traf-2819: 95th
Percentile Vehicle Queuing —
Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/ or approach to
an adjacent intersection leading
away from an off-ramp would
receive a significant queuing impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic
to year 2035 Base Case 2040
Without OPSP volumes (see
Table 16.17).
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 7.1 percent in
the left turn lane on the Oyster
Point Boulevard westbound
approach to Airport Boulevard at a
location with Base Case 95th
percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The left turn
Revised Traf-2819: Vehicle Queuing
(see Figure 24 in Appendix E). The
following improvement would
mitigate the OPSP-specific impact.
This improvement is included in the
East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be
funded via the OPSP’s traffic impact
fee contribution to this program.
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities
Boulevard / Oyster Point
Boulevard
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Thru / Right
Turn Lanes
AM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue
= 242 feet, with a Base Case 95th
percentile queue of 250 feet.
PM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue
= 506 feet, with a Base Case 95th
LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-113
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
increase volumes by 3.2 percent in the
left turn lane on the Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound approach to
Airport Boulevard at a location with
Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
The left turn lane queue would be
extended from 524 up to 542 feet at a
location with only 140 feet of storage.
In addition, the OPSP would increase
volumes by 10.5 percent in the
through lanes on the Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound approach to
Airport Boulevard at a location with
Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
The through lane queue would be
extended from 415 to 447 feet at a
location with only 250 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
percentile queue of 524 feet. Each
through lane queue = 280 feet, with a
Base Case 95th percentile queue of
415 feet.
lane queue would be extended from
256 up to 273 feet at a location with
only 140 feet of storage.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 3.2 2.5 percent
in the left through and through/right
turn lanes on the Oyster Point
Boulevard westbound approach to
Airport Boulevard at a location with
Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
The left turn lane queue would be
extended from 524 up to 542 feet at
a location with only 140 feet of
storage. In addition, the OPSP
would increase volumes by 10.5
percent in the through lanes on the
Oyster Point Boulevard westbound
approach to Airport Boulevard at a
location with Base Case
unacceptable Without OPSP 95th
percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The
through/right turn lane queue would
be extended from 415 1,906 to 447
2,024 feet at a location with only
250 520 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
percentile queue of 524 feet. Each
through lane queue = 280 feet, with
a Base Case 95th percentile queue of
415 feet.
AM & PM Peak Hours – All lanes
with significant impacts would have
95th percentile queuing reduced to
less than without OPSP conditions.
Impact reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
No significant impact was previously
identified at this intersection under
future year conditions.
No mitigation warranted. New Impact Traf-20: 95th
Percentile Vehicle Queuing —
Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp or approach to
an adjacent intersection leading
away from an off-ramp would
receive a significant queuing impact
due to the addition of OPSP traffic
to year 2040 Without OPSP
volumes.
• South Airport Boulevard /
New Traf-20: Improvements for
Vehicle Queuing. The following
improvements would mitigate the
OPSP impact. These improvements
are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the
OPSP’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
• South Airport Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell
LTS
revised to
LTS with MM
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-114 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 12.5 percent in
the left turn lane on the S. Airport
Boulevard eastbound approach to
Gateway Boulevard and increase
the 95th percentile queue from 195
up to about 245 feet with only 170
feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Avenue
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing – S. Airport Boulevard
eastbound left turn lane.
AM Peak Hour: The eastbound left
turn lane would have a resultant 95th
percentile queue demand of 216 feet,
which would be less than without
OPSP operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact Traf-29: Off-Ramp Queuing
To Freeway Mainline During Peak
Traffic Hours - SIM traffic
evaluation. The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the
freeway mainline sometime during
one or both peak hours due to the
addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035
Base Case volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
S. Airport Boulevard /
Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes on the off-ramp by
2.9 percent at a location with year
2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic
occasionally backing up to the
freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-29: Off-Ramp Queuing. No
improvements are feasible to mitigate
OPSP-specific impacts.
Previous Impact Traf-29 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-30: Off-Ramp Queuing
To Freeway Mainline During Peak
Traffic Hours. SIM Traffic evaluation
The following off-ramp would receive
a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline
Traf-30: Vehicle Queuing. No
improvements are feasible to mitigate
the OPSP-specific impact. Measures
recommended in Traf-28 would
reduce off-ramp queuing. However,
backups would continue to
Previous Impact Traf-30 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-115
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes.
• U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to
Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 16.6 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case
off-ramp traffic occasionally backing
up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
occasionally extend to the freeway
mainline during the AM peak hour.
Impact Traf-31: Off-Ramp Queuing
To Freeway Mainline During Peak
Traffic Hours. SIM Traffic evaluation
The following off-ramp would receive
a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline
sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 28.9 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case
off-ramp traffic occasionally backing
up to the freeway mainline.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 18.5 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case
off-ramp traffic occasionally backing
up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-31: Vehicle Queuing. No
improvements are feasible to mitigate
the OPSP-specific impact.
Previous Impact Traf-31 deleted in
entirety as no significant impact
was found at this intersection with
the updated analysis.
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-32: Off-Ramp Queuing
To Freeway Mainline During Peak
Traffic Hours. SIM Traffic evaluation
Traf-32: Vehicle Queuing. No
improvements are feasible to mitigate
the OPSP-specific impact.
Previous Impact Traf-32 deleted in
entirety and replaced with the
following:
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-116 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
The following off-ramp would receive
a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline
sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 1.7 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case
off-ramp traffic occasionally backing
up to the freeway mainline. The
primary reason for the backup would
be congestion at downstream
intersections along E. Grand Avenue.
This would be a significant impact.
Revised Impact Traf-21: On- and
Off-Ramp Operation. Other than as
indicated in Traf-21, no on- or off-
ramp would receive a significant
impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to 2040 Without OPSP
volumes.
This would be a less-than-
significant impact, therefore no
mitigation is required.
Impact Traf-33: Off-Ramp Operation
At Mainline Diverge. The analysis
concluded that there would be a
significant impact at the Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp Diverge to the
Oyster Point / Gateway Boulevard
intersection due to the addition of
OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.6).
AM peak hour volumes would be
increased by 16.6 percent (from 2,107
up to 2,456 vehicles per hour) at a
location where Base Case volumes
would already be exceeding the off-
ramp diverge capacity of 1,500
vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-33: Improvement to Diverge
Capacity – U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard
No improvements are feasible to
mitigate OPSP-specific impacts. The
spacing of southbound off-ramp
connections to Airport Boulevard and
to Oyster Point Boulevard precludes
the possibility of providing a second
off-ramp lane connection to
southbound U.S.101 to serve the
Oyster Point Boulevard southbound
off-ramp. A second off-ramp lane
connection to the freeway mainline
would require a long (1,000-foot or
longer) deceleration lane with only
300 feet of available space. There is
no room for provision of this lane.
Previous Impact Traf-33 deleted in
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-21 (see above).
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-34: Off-Ramp Operation Traf-34: Improvement to Diverge Previous Impact Traf-33 deleted in Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-117
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
At Mainline Diverge. The analysis
concluded that there would be a
significant impact at the Northbound
Off-Ramp Diverge to the Dubuque
Avenue due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.6). AM peak
hour volumes would be increased by
28.7 percent (from 1,556 up to 2,002
vehicles per hour) at a location where
Base Case volumes would already be
exceeding the off-ramp diverge
capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Capacity U.S.101 Northbound Off-
Ramp to Dubuque Avenue. The
following improvements would
mitigate the OPSP-specific impact
(see Figure 24 in Appendix E).
Provide a second off-ramp lane
connection to the U.S.101 mainline.
Off-ramp diverge capacity would be
increased to at least 2,200 vehicles
per hour, which would accommodate
the Base Case + OPSP AM peak hour
volume of 1,556 vehicles per hour.
This measure will require the
approval of Caltrans. Also, this
measure is currently not included in
the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the
OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards this measure. It
should be noted that because the
improvement is within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented
While it is likely that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the measure
is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this
impact is considered to be significant
and unavoidable.
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-21 (see above).
revised to
LTS
Impact Traf-35: On-Ramp Operation.
The analysis concluded that there
would be a significant impact at the
Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.7). PM peak hour volumes
Traf-35: Improvement to On-Ramp
Capacity Northbound On-Ramp from
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque
Avenue (see Figure 24 in Appendix
E). Provision of a second on-ramp
lane would increase capacity to about
3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour.
This measure will require the
Revised Impact Traf-3522: On-
Ramp Operation. The analysis
concluded that there would be a
significant impact at the
Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
due to the addition of OPSP traffic
to year 2035 Base Case 2040
Revised Traf-3522: Improvement to
On-Ramp Capacity Northbound On-
Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue (see Figure 24 in
Appendix E). Provision of a second
on-ramp lane would increase
capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100
vehicles per hour. This measure will
SU
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-118 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
would be increased by 17.0 percent
(from 2,190 up to 2,563 vehicles per
hour) at a location where Base Case
volumes would be just less than the
on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles
per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
approval of Caltrans. Also, this
measure is currently not included in
the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the
OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards this measure. It
should be noted that because the
improvement is within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented
While it is likely that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the measure
is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this
impact is considered to be significant
and unavoidable. There are no other
physical improvements possible
acceptable to Caltrans to
accommodate the Base Case + OPSP
volume of about 2,563 vehicles per
hour.
Without OPSP volumes (see
Table 16.7). PM peak hour volumes
would be increased by 17.0 about
4.8 percent (from 2,190 2,482 up to
2,563 2,602 vehicles per hour) at a
location where Base Case Without
OPSP volumes would already be
just less greater than the on-ramp
capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
require the approval of Caltrans.
Also, this measure is currently not
included in the East of 101 TIP.
Therefore, the OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards this
measure. It should be noted that
because the improvement is within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency
for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that
the mitigation will be implemented
While it is likely possible that
Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the
impact to a less than significant
level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for
CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and
unavoidable. There are no other
physical improvements possible
acceptable to Caltrans to
accommodate a Base Case 2040
With OPSP volume of about 2,563
2,602 vehicles per hour.
Impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impact Traf-36: On-Ramp Operation.
The analysis concluded that there
would be a significant impact at the
Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque
Avenue due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.7). PM peak
hour volumes would be increased by
11.5 percent (from 1,906 up to 2,125
vehicles per hour) at a location where
Base Case volumes would be just less
than the on-ramp capacity of 2,000
Traf-36: Improvement to On-Ramp
Capacity Southbound On-Ramp from
Dubuque Avenue (see Figure 24 in
Appendix E). This OPSP should
provide a fair share contribution as
determined by the City Engineer to
the following measure.
Provide a second on-ramp lane
connection to the U.S.101 freeway.
On-ramp capacity would be
increased from 2,000 up to 3,000
vehicles per hour, with a Base Case +
Previous Impact Traf-36 deleted in
entirety and replaced with Revised
Impact Traf-21 (see above).
Deleted. No mitigation warranted. SU
revised to
LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-119
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
OPSP PM peak hour volume of about
2,125 vehicles per hour. This
measure will require the approval of
Caltrans. Also, this measure is
currently not included in the East of
101 TIP. Therefore, the OPSP shall
provide a fair share contribution
towards this measure. It should be
noted that because the improvement
is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the
City of South San Francisco, as lead
agency for the OPSP, cannot
guarantee that the mitigation will be
implemented While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure,
thereby reducing the impact to a less
than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this
impact is considered to be significant
and unavoidable.
Impact Traf-37: Freeway Mainline
Operation. One U.S.101 mainline
segments would receive a significant
impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.18).
• U.S.101 Southbound (to the north
of the Oyster Point interchange)
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would
increase volumes by 3.6 percent (from
9,698 up to 10,047 vehicles per hour)
at a location with unacceptable LOS F
year 2035 Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-37: Improvement to Freeway
Mainline. Mitigation of this impact
would require widening the current
freeway or construction of a new
freeway. Given the location of the
mainline freeway and its close
proximity to surrounding
development, such mitigation is not
feasible. Additionally, such
mitigation would be prohibitively
expensive in relation to the types of
land uses it would benefit. Given
these specific concerns, mitigation of
Impact 14A is not feasible as defined
by CEQA.
Revised Impact Traf-3723: Freeway
Mainline Operation. One No
U.S.101 mainline segment would
receive a significant impact during
the AM peak hour due to the
addition of OPSP traffic to year
2035 Base Case 2040 Without
OPSP volumes, while one segment
would receive a significant impact
during the PM peak hour (see
Table 16.18).
• U.S.101 South Northbound (to
the north of the Oyster Point
interchange)
AM PM Peak Hour: The OPSP
would increase volumes by 3.6 1.3
percent (from 9,698 up to 10,047
11,634 up to 11,787 vehicles per
hour) at a location with
Revised Traf-3723: Improvement to
Freeway Mainline. Mitigation of this
impact would require widening the
current freeway or construction of a
new freeway. Given the location of
the mainline freeway and its close
proximity to surrounding
development, such mitigation is not
feasible. Additionally, such
mitigation would be prohibitively
expensive in relation to the types of
land uses it would benefit. Given
these specific concerns, mitigation
of this Iimpact 14A is not feasible as
defined by CEQA.
Impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
SU
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-120 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
unacceptable LOS F year 2035
Base Case 2040 Without OPSP
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Utilities
Impact Util-1: Increased Water
Demand. Build-out of the OPSP area
would increase water demand and use
of the local water system. However,
according to the Water Supply
Assessment and Utilities Study, there
is sufficient water supply through the
year 2030, including the increased
demand from the OPSP, and adequate
water system capacity. This is a less-
than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Util-1: Increased
Water Demand. Build-out of the
OPSP area would increase water
demand and use of the local water
system. However, according to the
Water Supply Assessment and
Utilities Study Municipal Services
Assessment, there is sufficient
water supply through the year
20302040, including the increased
demand from the OPSP, and
adequate water system capacity
assuming adequate on-site
improvements. This is a less-than-
significant impact.
Same LTS
Impact Util-2: Exceed Existing Pump
Station and Subtrunk Wastewater
Capacity. The additional wastewater
flows from the construction of the
total OPSP will exceed the hydraulic
capacities of the existing Oyster Point
Subtrunk, and Pump Station No. 2.
The inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand of the
wastewater subtrunk and pump
station is a potentially significant
impact.
Util-2a: Upsize Pump Station No. 2.
To provide the required sewer
capacity for the Plan, Pump Station
No. 2 will need to be upsized to a
firm capacity of 1.6.
The Sewer Master Plan includes
expanding Pump Station No. 2.
Improvements under the Sewer
Master Plan are funded through a
flat-rate sewer connection fee for
new development and a monthly
impact fee. The amount of the impact
fee is based on the quantity (flow) of
wastewater generated. The occupants
of the proposed OPSP development
shall pay the sanitary sewer fees
imposed by the City of South San
Francisco in order to mitigate the
cost of the pump station upgrade
Same
Same LTS with MM
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-121
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
necessary to manage the wastewater
flows generated by the OPSP.
Util-2b: Oyster Point Subtrunk
Replacement. To provide the
required sewer capacity, the Oyster
Point Subtrunk will need to be
replaced with a larger sized trunk
line, with sizes ranging from 12, 15,
and 18-inches.
The majority of these improvements
are included in the Sewer Master
Plan and are funded through a flat-
rate sewer connection fee for new
development and a monthly impact
fee. The amount of the impact fee is
based on the quantity (flow) of
wastewater generated. The occupants
of the proposed OPSP shall pay the
sanitary sewer fees imposed by the
City of South San Francisco in order
to mitigate the cost of the sewer
system upgrades necessary to
manage the wastewater flows
generated by the OPSP.
An additional 700 feet of 8-inch
diameter sewer trunk from Eccles
Avenue to Gull Road needs to be
upsized to a 12-inch diameter trunk
sewer. This segment of sewer trunk
was not included in the
recommendations in the Sewer
Master Plan. The applicants shall
either work with the City to include
this improvement in an Sewer Master
Plan update or directly fund their fair
share of the improvement.
Impact Util-3: Increased Wastewater
Treatment Demand. Build-out of the
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-122 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
OPSP area would increase wastewater
flows and increase demand at the
South San Francisco-San Bruno
Water Quality Control Plant.
However, according to the South San
Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality
Control Plant Draft Facilities Plan
Update, there is sufficient capacity
through the year 2030, including a
reserve capacity for flows from the
East of 101 area. As the wastewater
treatment plant has adequate capacity
to serve the OPSP’s projected
demand, this increased demand is a
less-than-significant impact.
Impact Util-4: Increased Impervious
Area. OPSP area build-out will
increase the impervious area by two
acres, or 2.6 percent, which could
result in increased stormwater flows
and/or runoff not meeting treatment
requirements, without appropriate on-
site controls. However, the potential
for increased flows will be mitigated
through required compliance with the
NPDES permit process, which will
require such controls. Additionally,
stormwater controls are proposed to
meet or exceed LEED standards. The
OPSP would not require additional
off-site storm water facilities or fail to
meet treatment requirements. This is a
less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Revised Impact Util-4: Increased
Impervious Area. OPSP area build-
out will increase the impervious
area by two 2.9 acres, or 2.6 3.6
percent, which could result in
increased stormwater flows and/or
runoff not meeting treatment
requirements, without appropriate
on-site controls. However, the
potential for increased flows will be
mitigated through required
compliance with the NPDES permit
process, which will require such
controls. Additionally, stormwater
controls are proposed to meet or
exceed LEED standards. The OPSP
would not require additional off-
site storm water facilities or fail to
meet treatment requirements. This
is a less-than-significant impact.
Same LTS
Impact Util-5: Increased Solid Waste
Disposal Demand. The OPSP would
increase solid waste generation at the
site but would be served by a landfill
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 2-123
2011 OPSP Impacts 2011 OPSP Mitigation
Measures 2017 OPSP Update Impacts 2017 OPSP Update Mitigation
Measures
Level of Significance
with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the OPSP’s solid waste
disposal needs, and would not impede
the ability of the City to meet the
applicable federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste. The OPSP would have a
less-than-significant impact with no
mitigation warranted.
Impact Util-6: Increased Energy
Consumption. The OPSP would have
an incremental increase in the demand
for gas and electrical power given the
increase in development in the OPSP
area. However, the OPSP is expected
to be served with existing capacity
and would not require or result in
construction of new energy facilities
or expansion of existing off-site
facilities and would not violate
applicable federal, state and local
statutes and regulations relating to
energy standards. Additionally,
buildings in the OPSP are proposed to
meet or exceed LEED standards. The
OPSP would have a less-than-
significant impact relating to energy
consumption with no mitigation
warranted.
No mitigation warranted. Same Same LTS
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-124 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 3-1
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
The 2011 OPSP was previously approved and the 2011 EIR certified for the entire OPSP area. The
Oyster Point Specific Plan Appendix + Design Guidelines dated February 23, 2011 was prepared to
implement and refine the policies of the General Plan and the Design Element of the East 101 Area
Plan. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco approved the Plan Appendix and Design
Guidelines on March 23, 2011.
Changes to the development plan for a portion of the OPSP area are currently being proposed. This
chapter describes the portion of the OPSP that is encompassed by the 2017 OPSP Update, including the
location, site conditions and existing uses, as well as the objectives, and required approvals. Specific
elements of the OPSP and how these are proposed to be changed with the 2017 OPSP Update are
detailed. As described in more detail below, the 2017 OPSP Update is the “project” for purposes of this
SEIR.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATION AND 2017 OPSP UPDATE AREA
The 2017 OPSP Update area is a portion of the larger OPSP area. The approximately 85-acre OPSP site
is located about 3/4 of a mile east of U.S. 101, at the eastern end (Bay side) of Oyster Point and Marina
Boulevards. The OPSP is part of the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101” planning area, the
traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technological businesses,
including bioscience offices. The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land bound by San
Francisco Bay on the east side, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane and San
Francisco Bay on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix of
land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and
development facilities. The area is also currently separated from most of South San Francisco’s
residential uses by U.S. 101 (the closest of which are about 3,500 feet to the west) though some live-
aboard boats are permitted at the two marinas located on Oyster Point and Oyster Cove marinas in the
OPSP area.
The currently proposed 2017 OPSP Update encompasses the northern approximately 35 acres of the
85-acre OPSP area, including the areas identified in the 2011 EIR as Phases II, III, and IV. The location
of the 2017 OPSP Update area within the larger full OPSP area and vicinity are shown in Figure 3.1.
SITE CONDITIONS AND EXISTING USES
The OPSP area includes areas commonly known as the Oyster Point Business Park and the Oyster
Point Marina area. The 2017 OPSP Update area is mostly the same as the existing Oyster Point
Business Park area, except that a small portion of the area currently considered part of the Oyster Point
Marina would also be added as part of the roadway realignment proposed in the 2011 OPSP and
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
expected to proceed soon as part of Phase I development separate from this 2017 OPSP Update. Phase I
development and roadway realignment would also involve removal of landfill refuse from the Phase II
site.
The Oyster Point Business Park encompasses 25 net acres of the OPSP area (not counting roadways). It
is a privately owned series of five single-story light-industrial buildings at 375/377, 379, 384, 385 and
389 Oyster Point Boulevard that were developed in the early 1980s totaling 403,212 square feet of
space with surrounding parking (see Figure 3.2). Currently, these buildings are occupied by a variety
of light industrial, office, and Research and Development (R&D) tenants. The Oyster Cove Marina is
privately owned and located to the west of the Oyster Point Business Park; it contains 235 berths.
The 48-acre area known as the Oyster Point Marina area fills the remainder of the OPSP area other than
roadway elements, which complete the 85-acre area. The Oyster Point Marina area is outside the
boundary of the 2017 OPSP update, with the exception of a small portion of this area that will become
part of Phase II within the 2017 OPSP Update area as part of the roadway realignment planned in the
2011 OPSP and occurring as part of Phase I development prior to this 2017 OPSP Update. This land
served as a municipal landfill for the City of South San Francisco from 1956 until it stopped accepting
waste in 1970 and received regulatory closure in 1977. The Oyster Point Marina area is owned by the
City of South San Francisco and managed through a Joint Powers Agreement with the San Mateo
County Harbor District. Currently, this area hosts a variety of uses including a dry boat storage area, a
marine support services building, two small office buildings, a 30-room inn and banquet hall, a bait and
tackle shop, a boat and motor mart and a yacht club, all totaling 74,360 square feet. The Oyster Point
Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster Point Marina area and contains approximately 465
berths, a boat ramp, fuel dock, fishing pier, and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal with service
to/from the East Bay. The remaining area is vacant or serves as parking for the docks, boat ramp, and
the Bay Trail at the Oyster Point Marina area (see Figure 3.2).
CHANGES TO SITE CONDITIONS FROM THE 2011 EIR
The ferry terminal at the Oyster Point Marina was not yet constructed during the 2011 EIR, but was a
known project that was assumed would be in place during OPSP build-out. Site conditions otherwise
remain generally unchanged except that vacancies in site buildings have increased as redevelopment of
the site approaches.
OPSP Phase I office/R&D development has been approved and Phase I development would include the
roadway realignment, landfill refuse relocation, and construction of Crescent Beach and Park, though
construction had not yet begun during preparation of this SEIR.
2017 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE DESCRIPTION
2011 OPSP DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE UPDATE AREA
The 2011 OPSP originally envisioned a total of 1,750,000 square feet of private office/R&D
development across Phases II, III, and IV (the area subject to the 2017 OPSP Update), with
approximately 500,000 to 700,000 square feet of development in each phase.
2017 OPSP UPDATE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
As it is proposed, the OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP Update in that area, is shown on Figure 3.3.
Development assumptions in the 2017 OPSP Update area and the change from those in the 2011 OPSP
are shown in Table 3.1. A detailed breakdown is included in the following subsections.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 3-3
Table 3.1: Comparison of Development Assumptions in the OPSP Update Area
2011 OPSP 2017 OPSP Update
Use Size Use Size
Office/R&D (Phase II)
1,750,000 sq. ft.
no change 1,070,000 sq. ft.
Office/R&D (Phase III) Residential (Phase III) 1,191 units plus
22,000 sq. ft.
retail/amenity
space Office/R&D (Phase IV)
Residential (Phase IV)
Note that Phase I Office/R&D is approved at the low end of the assumed square footage, resulting in a total reduction of
750,000 square feet of office/R&D development from the 2,300,000 square feet total proposed in the 2011 OPSP.
The 2011 OPSP addressed Phases II through IV of the OPSP on a programmatic level. The current
proposal revises proposed uses at Phases III and IV and adds detail for Phases II, III, and IV.
The Project Applicant, Oyster Point Development, LLC, is proposing amendments to the South San
Francisco General Plan and the OPSP (Chapter 20.230 of the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance)
and related project entitlements to allow for the development of office/R&D and a new mixed-use
community on Phases II, III, and IV of the 2017 OPSP Update area.
Office/R&D Development (Phase II)
The 2017 OPSP Update proposal for Phase II development is generally consistent with the 2011 OPSP,
in that it proposes office/R&D development in that location at a level of intensity that is consistent with
that allowed under the 2011 OPSP. Specifically, the 2017 OPSP Update proposal for Phase II includes
1,070,000 square feet of office/R&D development including approximately 28,000 square feet of
flexible-use retail/amenity space across approximately 20 acres. Phase II development requires the
demolition of two of the Oyster Point Business Park single-story light-industrial buildings, 375/377 and
379 Oyster Point Boulevard.
The Phase II proposal has been included in the 2017 OPSP Update because, while within the total
office/R&D square-footage and intensity (maximum1.25 floor area ratio) anticipated in the 2011 OPSP,
the square footage for this one phase is more than assumed for any one phase and because the building
design details and the location of parking have changed from what was previously assessed.
Residential Development (Phases III and IV)
The 2017 OPSP Update for Phases III and IV consists of up to 1,191 residential units and 22,000
square feet of flexible use retail and/or amenity space. The maximum dwelling unit density would be
approximately 100 units per acre across a total of approximately 12.4 net acres. The proposed
residential uses for Phases III and IV require amendments to the General Plan and OPSP.
Development under Phases III and IV would include demolition of three of the existing Oyster Point
Business Park single-story light-industrial buildings (at 384, 385, and 389 Oyster Point Boulevard), and
construction of four 7-story buildings accommodating multi-family residential over parking (Park
View, Marina South, and Oyster Point South apartments, and Marina North condominiums), and one
multi-family residential building with a 16-story tower and a 23-story tower over parking (Oyster Point
North condominiums) as shown on Figure 3.4. Details of Phase III and IV residential development are
summarized in Table 3.2.
DRA
F
T
SUB
S
E
Q
U
E
N
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
20
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
PAGE 3-4
Ta
b
l
e
3
.
2
:
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
–
P
h
a
s
e
s
I
I
I
a
n
d
I
V
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
P
a
r
k
V
i
e
w
M
a
r
i
n
a
N
o
r
t
h
M
a
r
i
n
a
S
o
u
t
h
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
o
u
t
h
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
N
o
r
t
h
Si
t
e
A
r
e
a
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
n
e
t
a
c
r
e
s
)
3
.
4
6
a
c
2
.
0
1
a
c
2
.
2
0
a
c
2
.
7
5
a
c
2
.
0
0
a
c
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
8
0
f
t
80
f
t
8
0
f
t
8
0
f
t
North tower: 240 ft South tower: 175 ft
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
s
7
7
7
7
North tower: 23 South tower: 16
Re
t
a
i
l
/
A
m
e
n
i
t
y
F
l
e
x
A
r
e
a
1
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
—
1
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
—
—
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
r
e
a
(
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
)
3
0
9
,
7
3
2
s
f
1
9
6
,
2
2
5
s
f
—
—
—
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
U
n
i
t
s
3
3
0
0
2
1
5
1
5
0
0
Co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
U
n
i
t
s
0
1
5
0
0
0
3
4
6
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
4
.
3
2
a
c
r
e
s
p
u
b
l
i
c
B
a
y
-
s
i
d
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
p
l
u
s
c
o
mm
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
e
a
c
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 3-5
The residential unit mix for Phases III and IV would consist of 514 studio/one-bedroom units, 479 two-
bedroom units, and 198 three-bedroom units.
The buildings would be composed of type III-A construction for the residential uses over type I-A
construction parking and retail/amenity uses. Above the concrete podium, the primary façade materials
would include stucco, Hardie shingle and smooth panel siding, and wood-alternative material (Figures
3.5 and 3.6). The ground floor of the residential units would be set back from the public right-of-way
and raised above grade where feasible. The parking areas would be screened from public views with
active uses or a landscape buffer and would be integrated with the architectural design of the buildings.
Access and Circulation
As part of development under Phases II, III, and IV, Oyster Point Boulevard would be extended to the
north and would provide primary vehicular access to the Project site. Private road extensions would
provide additional circulation through the site for access to the office, residential, and retail/amenity
uses. An east-west connecting road between Oyster Point Boulevard and Oyster Cove Marina would
also be developed (Figure 3.7).
Parking for Phases III and IV would include 1,667 spaces for residential uses and 55 spaces for the
retail/amenity uses. Bicycle parking would also be provided to meet or exceed requirements.
Parking uses would be accessed from Oyster Point Boulevard and private internal roadways. Pedestrian
access would be provided via sidewalks throughout the site, and the east-west connection would
provide pedestrian access to the retail/amenity uses as well as access to the Bay Trail.
Open Space and Landscaping
Development and construction of landscaping and improvements to the Oyster Cove Marina Shoreline
would create a mix of uses, to include park uses, recreational facilities, and Bay Trail improvements
and encompass 4.32 acres of new public open space.
Improvements to the access pathways from the Bay Trail to the Oyster Cove Marina are also proposed.
Other open space areas would include courtyards, mews, plazas, and pedestrian corridors.
Approximately 190 to 200 existing trees would be removed and replaced with 280 to 320 news trees, to
include street trees and trees for the park and mews areas. Where possible, existing trees would be
retained and relocated. Approximately 170,000 – 180,000 square feet of existing ground cover would
be removed and replaced with 110,000 – 140,000 square feet of new plantings. Replacement trees and
other new vegetation would include species recommended by San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission and City of South San Francisco.
Utilities
Existing utility connections would be reused or maintained where possible. A new sanitary sewer
system would connect to the existing sewer system, and a new storm drainage system would be
installed to collect, filter/treat, and discharge stormwater runoff into the San Francisco Bay. A new
domestic water service would connect all new buildings, and a new joint utility trench would include
electrical and telecommunication services.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Phasing and Construction
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that phasing of development in the 2017 OPSP Update
area would proceed in the following order (construction duration and approximate completion
timeframe in parentheses):
1. Park View Apartments (20 months completing early-2020)
2. Marina North Condominiums (22 months completing mid-2021)
3. Marina South Apartments (20 months completing early-2022)
4. Phase II Office/R&D (17 months completing early-2023)
5. Oyster Point South Apartments (22 months completing late-2023)
6. Oyster Point North Condominiums (22 months completing late-2025)
Demolition of existing structures would occur prior to development. Buildings in the Phase III and IV
area (384, 385, and 389 Oyster Point Boulevard) would be demolished together at initiation of
construction activities (estimated as early 2018). Buildings in the Phase II area (375/377 and 379
Oyster Point Boulevard) are proposed to be demolished near the start of residential construction
(estimated as mid-2018).
Temporary landscaping would be installed in cleared sites between demolition and building
construction. Site preparation lasting approximately 2 to 3 months per site would also occur prior to the
above building construction activities.
UNCHANGED ELEMENTS OF 2011 OPSP
This SEIR does not focus on those elements of the 2011 OPSP that remain unchanged with the 2017
OPSP Update. A brief summary of the development assumptions from the 2011 OPSP that remain
unchanged is presented below and can be found in detail in the 2011 EIR included as Appendix B.
Phase I
Phase I office/R&D, for which the City approved a Precise Plan in 2011, is not affected by the
proposed modifications and is not affected by the 2017 OPSP Update. Per the approved project, Phase I
will include 508,000 square feet of office/R&D (508,000 to 600,000 square feet were assumed under
the 2011 OPSP). The realignment of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard (and associated
utility infrastructure and relocation of landfill refuse, as proposed in the 2011 OPSP will also occur
with Phase I development.
At the time of preparation of this SEIR for the 2017 OPSP Update, the Phase I project was seeking
construction permits consistent with previous approvals and environmental analysis, as described
above. While construction had not yet begun, this SEIR assumes construction of Phase I and the related
roadway realignment and refuse relocation would occur prior to development in the 2017 OPSP Update
area.
Phases II-IV
Compared with the 2011 OPSP, the 2017 OPSP Update would include the same demolition of existing
buildings in the Phase II, III and IV area, located at 375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard, as well as the
same general alignment of Oyster Point Boulevard and utility infrastructure (including upgrade of
sewer pump station #1). The types of uses proposed for Phase II (office/R&D and accessory
commercial uses), and the allowable intensity of development (up to 1.25 FAR) are not affected by the
2017 OPSP Update.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 3-7
Oyster Point Marina Area and Other Improvements
The majority of the Oyster Point Marina area (with the exception of a small portion that will be added
to Phase II with realignment of the roadways discussed above) is also unaffected by the 2017 OPSP
Update. Other development unaffected by the 2017 OPSP Update includes:
Dedication and construction of an approximately 3.1-acre waterfront public park, Crescent
Park and Beach, to the north and east of the Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard
intersection per City Specifications and BCDC design guidelines.
Improvements to approximately 2,200 linear feet of Bay Trail and surrounding open space
(subject to BCDC Guidelines and approval).
Improvements to create an approximately 3-acre flexible-use recreation area in the Oyster
Point Marina area.
Construction of one or two hotels with a total of 350 rooms and 40,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant.
Enhancement (landscape and other cosmetic improvements) of existing uses at the eastern end
of Oyster Point in conjunction with required landfill cap repairs in that area.
Demolition of the four existing buildings totaling 66,420 square feet, including the Oyster
Point Inn at 425 Marina Drive, two Office buildings at 360 Oyster Point Boulevard and 401
Marina Boulevard, and the boat and motor mart at 671 Marina Boulevard.
2017 OPSP UPDATE OBJECTIVES
The following objectives from the 2011 EIR remain applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update:
1. Create a vibrant destination and a new gateway to the City of South San Francisco.
2. Reorganize the area into a better pattern of land uses that will benefit all of the community’s
stakeholders.
3. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan designation
as a site for business and technology park facilities.
4. Continue to develop the East of 101 area into a nationally recognized research and development
center that will attract other life science and high technology businesses.
5. Enhance availability of public open space and access to the Bay.
6. Provide flexible recreational amenities for public use.
7. Counteract the potential effects of sea level rise on the Project site.
8. Generate additional demand for the transit mode-shift opportunities inherent in proximity to the
ferry terminal.
9. Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco.
10. Generate net property tax and other fees from the development Project and enhance property
values.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
11. Build a project that is viable in the East of 101 area based upon market conditions and projected
service requirements for the area.
12. Develop a project of high quality design as called for in the Design Element of the East of 101
area Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties.
The following objective was not included in the 2011 EIR but has been added as an objective of the
2017 OPSP Update:
13. Develop additional housing to help offset the jobs-housing imbalance.
The following objective from the 2011 EIR has already been completed and is therefore not applicable
to the 2017 OPSP Update, and is not further discussed in this SEIR:
Untangle the various ground leases and land uses that has prohibited the City from realizing its
vision for a coherent mixture of public and private land uses on Oyster Point. Redevelop under-
utilized land.
The following objectives from the 2011 EIR is not applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update, and are not
further discussed in this SEIR as the referenced work will occur as part of Phase I and/or development
of the Oyster Point Marina area outside of the 2017 OPSP Update area:
Repair and upgrade the landfill closure to Title 27 standards.
Reconfigure existing roads to enhance view corridors to the Bay and accommodate a more efficient
layout of development sites.
Since the 2011 EIR, the state of California no longer recognizes redevelopment agencies or allows use
of redevelopment tax increment so the following objective is no longer applicable:
Allow for use of redevelopment tax increment and debt to help ensure fiscal feasibility of this and
other redevelopment area projects.
INTENDED USES OF THIS SEIR
As discussed in Chapter 1, the City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency responsible for
preparation of this SEIR (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15051). This SEIR is also intended to
update the previous program level analysis for the 2017 OPSP Update area to analyze the proposed
changes to the OPSP. The 2011 EIR, as supplemented by this SEIR, provides City of South San
Francisco decision makers, reviewing agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental
information to use in considering the required discretionary actions for approval. The following
approvals are anticipated to be required for development of the 2017 OPSP Update:
Certification of the SEIR
General Plan Amendment
Specific Plan Amendment
Zoning Amendment
Subdivision or Parcel Map
Approvals for each development:
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 3-9
Precise Plan
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Adoption
Design Review
Administrative approval of subsequent demolition, grading and building permits
Approvals from the following bodies are anticipated to be required:
City of South San Francisco
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County - Airport Land Use Commission
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page has been intentionally left blank.
C
HA
P
T
E
R
3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
20
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
PAGE 3-11
Ar
e
a
Ph
a
s
e
II
Ph
a
s
e
s
II
I
& IV
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
:
O
P
S
P
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
r
e
a
(
P
h
a
s
e
s
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
a
n
d
I
V
)
DRA
F
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
3-
1
2
2017 OPSP UPDATE
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
2
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
So
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
1
E
I
R
C
HA
P
T
E
R
3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
20
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
PAGE 3-13
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
3
:
O
P
S
P
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
an
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
(h
e
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
P
h
a
s
e
s
I
I
D
,
I
I
I
D
,
a
n
d
I
V
D
)
So
u
r
c
e
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
t
e
a
m
,
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
DRA
F
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
3-
1
4
2017 OPSP UPDATE
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
4
:
O
P
S
P
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
So
u
r
c
e
:
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
C
HA
P
T
E
R
3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
20
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
PAGE 3-15
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
5
:
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
O
P
S
P
E
l
e
va
t
i
o
n
s
,
M
a
r
i
n
a
N
o
r
t
h
C
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
T
e
a
m
,
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
7
DRA
F
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
3-
1
6
2017 OPSP UPDATE
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
6
:
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
O
P
S
P
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
P
a
r
k
V
i
e
w
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
T
e
a
m
,
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
7
C
HA
P
T
E
R
3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
20
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
PAGE 3-17
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
7
:
O
P
S
P
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
So
u
r
c
e
:
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
DRA
F
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
3-
1
8
2017 OPSP UPDATE
Th
i
s
p
a
g
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
l
e
f
t
b
l
a
n
k
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 4-1
4
AESTHETICS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides information on aesthetics and visual resources in the 2017 OPSP Update area and
considers whether the proposed change in use from office/R&D to residential in the 2017 OPSP Update
area could change the conclusions from the 2011 EIR.
New development can substantially change the visual qualities and characteristics of an urban area. The
visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations in subjective
reaction to the features of an urban area. A negative visual impression on one person may be viewed as
positive or beneficial by another. Objective or commonly agreed upon standards are difficult to
establish, but an extensive body of literature is devoted to the subject of urban design and visual
aesthetics.
REGULATORY SETTING
There have been no changes to the aesthetics regulatory setting applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update
area, except that the OPSP guidelines are now in effect and would be revised to include residential
development per the 2017 OPSP Update. The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011
EIR (Appendix B).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
There have been no substantial changes to the aesthetics environmental setting of the 2017 OPSP
Update area. The full environmental setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B).
Aesthetic Changes of the 2017 OPSP Update
With development of the OPSP, the majority of existing building on site (and all buildings within the
2017 OPSP Update area) would be demolished and replaced with new buildings as development
proceeds in phases. Visual models and renderings of the proposed development can be seen in Figures
4.1 through 4.5. The full description of the proposed changes can be found in Chapter 3: Project
Description and was used to assess aesthetic impacts. The proposed changes can be summarized as
follows:
The 2017 OPSP Update includes revisions to the use and specific massing of the buildings in the
2017 OPSP Update area but in similar locations as proposed under the 2011 OPSP. The 2011
OPSP proposed office/R&D buildings reaching 10 stories across the 2017 OPSP Update area with
separate large parking garage structures. Under the 2017 OPSP Update, there would be no separate
parking structures, and parking would instead be located in at/near grade and above structures
under the buildings it serves. Additionally, the massing of the proposed buildings has changed
somewhat with thinner, lower, less bulky residential buildings in the majority of the area ranging in
height from 4 to 7 stories. At the northern end of the 2017 OPSP Update area, residential towers
are proposed to reach up to 15 and 22 stories tall. Under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77,
building heights are allowable between approximately 400 and 500 feet.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 4-3
Figure 4.1: Aerial Rendering, facing generally north
A rending of Phase I is at the bottom of the figure with phases II, III, and IV located upwards on the figure from there.
Source: Applicant team, 7/28/2017.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Figure 4.2: Aerial Rendering, facing generally east
A rending of Phase IV is at the left of the figure with phases III, II, and I located toward the right on the figure from there.
Source: Applicant team, 7/28/2017.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 4-5
Figure 4.3: Aerial Rendering, facing generally south
A rending of Phase IV is at the bottom of the figure with phases III, II, and I located upwards on the figure from there.
Source: Applicant team, 7/28/2017.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Figure 4.4: Rendering, Park View Apartments (Phase III), facing generally northwest
Source: Applicant team, 7/11/2017.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
20
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
PAGE 4-7
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
.
5
:
R
e
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
,
M
a
r
i
n
a
N
o
r
t
h
C
o
n
d
o
m
i
ni
u
m
s
(
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
)
,
f
a
c
i
n
g
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
e
a
s
t
So
u
r
c
e
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
t
e
a
m
,
7
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
7
.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 4-9
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
4. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
SCENIC VISTA
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact Vis-1
or the less-than-significant conclusion as there are no scenic vista viewpoints in the area and therefore
the potential to impact views is generally the same as under the 2011 OPSP despite revisions to
building heights and massing.
While both the San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountains are visible from portions of the site and
surrounding area, there are no designated public viewpoints for scenic vistas. The topography of the
area and existing development already fully or partially blocks views from U.S. 101 and surrounding
development. The conclusion of less-than-significant in regard to scenic vistas would remain the same
even with the changed massing and different heights of buildings proposed with the 2017 OPSP
Update.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion related to scenic highways, as the lack of scenic designation of the nearby highways is the
same as under the 2011 OPSP.
VISUAL CHARACTER
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as residential development is not considered a degradation of character or quality of the
environment.
While the East of 101 area does not currently contain residential development, the visual nature and
character of residential development in an urbanized area is not substantially different from the visual
character of development proposed under the 2011 OPSP and is not generally considered to be a
negative visual element. The heights of buildings in the 2017 OPSP Update area are expected to
substantially increase over the current situation; however, while there would be substantial changes to
the site, the construction of modern buildings meeting or exceeding the city’s design criteria would not
“degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site.”
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
LIGHT AND GLARE
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact Vis-2, mitigation measures Vis-2a and Vis-2b, or the less-than-significant with mitigation
conclusion as the proposed lighting levels and potential for light and glare would be substantially the
same as under the 2011 OPSP.
While the development proposed with the 2017 OPSP Update includes taller buildings and residential
use, as specified in the 2011 EIR, development will be required to adhere to a lighting plan (mitigation
measure Vis-2a) and incorporate exterior surfaces intended to reduce glare (mitigation measure Vis-
2b). The potential for light and glare impacts would remain substantially the same as under the 2011
OPSP.
CUMULATIVE AESTHETIC IMPACTS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion related to cumulative aesthetic impacts as development under the 2017 OPSP
Update, as well as other development in the vicinity, would conform to applicable development and
lighting standards, which have not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
The East of 101 area in South San Francisco is the geographic context for cumulative assessment of
visual quality and aesthetics. This area is a historically industrial area transitioning to high technology
office/R&D uses as reflected in this and other foreseeable projects in the area. These projects largely
involve replacement of older facilities and/or vacant sites and include landscaping and pedestrian
improvements to current City standards. All future development that could occur in the vicinity of the
OPSP would be required to adhere to established restrictions, guidelines, standards, policies, and
criteria that address building appearance, height, bulk, and configuration. Given the current condition
of the East of 101 area and the highly designed developments in the foreseeable and anticipated future,
as well as mitigation included to reduce contributions to light and glare impacts, the cumulative
aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 5-1
5
AGRICULTURAL, FOREST AND MINERAL
RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the Draft SEIR contains discussion regarding the CEQA topic areas of Agricultural,
Forest, and Mineral Resources. Only limited analysis and discussion for these topic areas is required to
make significance determinations due to the nature and specifics of the OPSP site, including the 2017
OPSP Update area.
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the 2017
OPSP Update area as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1. Conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
2. A conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or
3. A conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)).
4. The loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to no-forest land.
5. Changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to
agriculture and forest resources, which do not occur in the OPSP area, including the 2017 OPSP
Update area, and there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to these topics.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the 2017
OPSP Update area as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1. Loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the
residents of the state; or
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 5-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
2. Loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Same Conclusion (NI): There have been no changes in circumstance or new information related to
mineral resources, which do not occur in the OPSP area, including the 2017 OPSP Update area, and
there would be no change to the no impact conclusion related to mineral resources.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 6-1
6
AIR QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential significance of air quality impacts related to the 2017 OPSP
Update. Because of changes in recommended air quality modeling methodologies and the desire to
assess air quality conditions for the residential uses now proposed, Ramboll Environ prepared a new
assessment of air quality for this SEIR, as included in full in Appendix D.
AIR QUALITY SETTING
While generally unchanged from the 2011 EIR, some information is repeated here to provide an
understanding of terms and concepts used in this discussion.
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental agencies for
specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria
air pollutants because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and
welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation. The criteria air pollutants emitted by development,
traffic and other activities anticipated under the proposed development include ozone (O3), ozone
precursors oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases (NOx and ROG), carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and suspended particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5
microns or less in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5). Other criteria pollutants, such as lead (Pb) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2), would not be substantially emitted by the proposed development or traffic, and air
quality standards for them are being met throughout the Bay Area.
Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged
for each air pollutant. As under the 2011 EIR, the Bay Area as a whole experiences some days of
violation for ground level ozone and PM10 and PM2.5and does not meet state or federal ambient air
quality standards for these pollutants.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Besides the "criteria" air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred
to as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under the Federal Clean Air Act and Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs) under the California Clean Air Act. These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in
relatively low concentrations in ambient air. However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects
if exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods. They are regulated at the local, state, and
federal level.
ODORS
Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. Common sources of odors include
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries and chemical plants. Odors
rarely have direct health impacts, but they can be very unpleasant and can lead concern over possible
health effects among the public.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
REGULATORY SETTING
The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B). Certain changes to
the regulatory section have occurred since the 2011 EIR, as described below.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
South San Francisco is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality in the basin through a regional
network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria
air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved.
BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the National and State ambient air quality
standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. 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. BAAQMD has
jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area, including San Mateo County, in which Oyster
Point is located.
BAAQMD issues CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines) to assist lead agencies in
evaluating and mitigating air quality impacts. The 2011 EIR was being prepared as the 1999
BAAQMD Guidelines were being updated for the 2010 draft and the 2011 EIR compared the OPSP to
both thresholds. The latest draft of the BAAQMD guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes
thresholds consistent with the 2010 draft BAAQMD Guidelines assessed in the 2011 EIR.
BAY AREA CLEAN AIR PLAN
South San Francisco is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and is subject to the Bay Area
2017 Clean Air Plan, first adopted by BAAQMD (in association with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]) in 1991 to meet state
requirements and those of the federal Clean Air Act. As required by state law, updates are developed
approximately every three years. The Clean Air Plan is meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting
the ozone standards, but also includes other elements related to particulate matter, toxic air
contaminants, and greenhouse gases. The latest update to the Clean Air Plan, which was adopted in
April 2017, is called the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist) contains a list of air quality effects
that may be considered significant. Implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update would have a significant
effect on the environment if it were to:
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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 6-3
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
CLEAN AIR PLAN CONSISTENCY
Less Significant Conclusion (SU reduced to LTS with MM): The Clean Air Plan has been updated
since the 2011 EIR and now includes different standards with which to assess a project, which requires
revisions to Impact Air-1, and a change in significance conclusion from significant and unavoidable to
less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation measure Traf-1, requiring implementation of TDM
plans remains applicable and unchanged from the 2011 EIR.
Revised Impact Air-1: Conflict with the Clean Air Plan Assumptions. Development anticipated as
a result of the OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP Update, would increase
employment and residential uses in an area designed for employment centers
served by local and regional transit. However, city-wide, vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) was projected to increase at a faster rate than the city’s population, which
development could conflicts with the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan CAP
assumptions if transportation control measures are not implemented with
development projects. This impact is a less-than-significant impact with
mitigation.
The significant and unavoidable impact in the 2011 EIR was based on the previous Clean Air Plan’s
requirement to consider the relative increase in population and vehicle use. This is no longer a
threshold in the current Clean Air Plan, although it can be noted that the 2017 OPSP Update also adds
population so would have had a reduced impact under that previous threshold because the population
would increase along with vehicle use. This would result in a more balanced increase of the two than
under the 2011 OPSP, which resulted in an imbalanced increase of vehicle use with no direct increase
in population.
BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals
and control measures. The impact would be significant if the project would conflict with or obstruct
attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures.
The primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are:
• Attain all state and national air quality standards
• Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air
contaminants
• Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050. [This standard is addressed in Chapter 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.]
The 2017 OPSP Update would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations related to
emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air
contaminants or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Many of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements,
regional policies, or large stationary source reductions, and these are not directly applicable to the 2017
OPSP Update. However, the 2017 OPSP Update is consistent with all rules and regulations related to
construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of energy and
water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and
green waste requirements (Waste Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4). The required TDM
plans (see Traf-1) will contribute to trip reduction programs (Transportation Control Measure TR2),
and improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure TR9).
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
The 2017 OPSP Update does not conflict with applicable control measures, is generally consistent with
the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan, and the impact would be reduced to less-than-significant with
implementation of mitigation measure Traf-1 requiring TDM plans for development, which would
require trip reductions that would also reduce resultant emissions, consistent with Bay Area 2017 Clean
Air Plan control measures.
OPERATIONAL EXPOSURE OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
(TACS)
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM reduced to LTS): Impact and mitigation measure Air-2
from the 2011 EIR identified the potential for health risks to sensitive uses proposed in the OPSP area
and required completion of an analysis of health risks. As required under the 2011 EIR, an analysis of
health risks was performed for the 2017 OPSP Update and demonstrates that operational health risk in
this portion of the OPSP would be less-than-significant, so a new impact statement and conclusion is
included for the 2017 OPSP Update. While the 2017 OPSP Update would introduce more sensitive
receptors to the area and therefore increase the potential for exposure to toxic air contaminants, the
detailed analysis demonstrates that the exposure potential in that area is not significant.
The less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion and Impact and mitigation measure Air-2 would
remain applicable to the remainder of the OPSP area (outside the 2017 OPSP Update area), but the
following impact and less-than-significant conclusion are instead applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update
area:
New Impact Air-2b: 2017 OPSP Update Operational Health Risks. Increases in traffic and related
emissions, relative to existing conditions, and emissions from emergency
generators would contribute to health risks to sensitive uses, including the
proposed on-site residents. However, an analysis of health risk determined the risk
in the 2017 OPSP Update area would be below applicable thresholds. Additionally,
new residents would not be located in an area potentially impacted by accidental
release of acutely hazardous air pollutants. The impact related to the 2017 OPSP
Update operational health risks would be less-than-significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The BAAQMD 2017 CEQA significance thresholds for health risks and hazards from a project single
source are:
• An excess lifetime cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million;
• A noncancer (chronic or acute) Health Index greater than 1.0; and
• An incremental increase in the annual average PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 μg/m3.
The BAAQMD 2017 CEQA significance thresholds for health risks and hazards from cumulative
sources are:
• An excess lifetime cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million;
• A noncancer (chronic or acute) Health Index greater than 10.0; and
• An incremental increase in the annual average PM2.5 of greater than 0.8 μg/m3.
While CEQA does not require an assessment of how existing environmental conditions will impact a
project’s future users or residents, it does require consideration of how worsened environmental
conditions could affect a project’s future users or residents. Because development in the OPSP will
contribute to increased emission levels from vehicles and generators and therefore exacerbate the
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 6-5
impact from existing conditions, the above thresholds were assessed for new residents proposed in the
2017 OPSP Update area.
Operational health risks were assessed for on-site residents, which would be the worst case scenario
and represent a conservative analysis for off-site residents as well using the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency regulatory air dispersion model (AERMOD) (USEPA 2016,
2017), as detailed in Appendix D. Maximum operational health risks in and around the 2017 OPSP
Update area were determined to be excess lifetime cancer risk of 3.7 in one million (compared to a
threshold of 10), a noncancer Health Index of 0.003 (compared to a threshold of 1), and annual average
PM2.5 of 0.007 μg/m3 (compared to a threshold of 0.3).
Cumulative maximum operational health risks in and around the 2017 OPSP Update area were
determined to be excess lifetime cancer risk of 6.6 in one million (compared to a threshold of 100), a
noncancer Health Index of 0.01 (compared to a threshold of 10), and annual average PM2.5 of 0.05
μg/m3 (compared to a threshold of 0.8).
The 2011 EIR determined that new sensitive receptors located within the OPSP (such as daycare
facilities) may be exposed to unhealthy levels of TACs from nearby existing industries that would be a
potentially significant impact. However, impacts were determined to be less than significant after
implementation of mitigation measure Air-2 from the 2011 EIR, which requires health risk assessments
and land use screening measures for new development of sensitive receptors locating within the OPSP.
Because the 2017 OPSP Update includes sensitive receptors (in this case, residents), the required health
risk assessment has been performed with this SEIR and has determined that operational health risks at
the site would be below threshold levels and therefore less than significant. While not previously
quantified, this impact would be the same or reduced from that in the 2011 EIR, as the previous
analysis already assumed the possibility of siting sensitive uses in the area, and residential uses are
generally a source of lower health risks than the previously-proposed office/R&D (due to reduced
traffic and generators/other stationary sources).
The potential for health risk related to the construction period is discussed under Construction-Period
Impacts.
Accidental Releases of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants
The BAAQMD Guidelines additionally recommend evaluating accidental releases of acutely hazardous
air pollutants. Specifically, BAAQMD has established the following threshold of significance:
• Storage or use of acutely hazardous materials locating near receptors or new receptors locating near
stored or used acutely hazardous materials considered significant.
Given the location of the 2017 OPSP Update area —which is surrounded by mostly commercial and
industrial land uses— and the fact that the 2017 OPSP Update proposes locating sensitive receptors
(i.e., residences) onsite, an analysis was performed to evaluate the potential for accidental releases of
acutely hazardous air pollutants that could impact the proposed residential uses in the 2017 OPSP
Update site. See full analysis in Appendix D as summarized below.
An evaluation of accidental releases of acutely hazardous air pollutants from nearby facilities was
conducted to determine if releases at these facilities could affect the 2017 OPSP Update site, which
include commercial and industrial sites in proximity to the 2017 OPSP Update site that handle,
manufacture, use, or store more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance and are thereby
required to prepare Risk Management Programs under the California Accidental Release Prevention
(CalARP) program. These qualifying facilities include:
• Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant,
• United Technical Operations,
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
• It’s-It Ice Cream Company,
• SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, and
• NXEdge-Inc
The analysis focused on “worst-case” release scenarios reported by these facilities. In addition, the
analysis was not strictly limited to air pollutants, but was designed to capture other potential hazards
identified in the Risk Management Program as well, such as fires and explosions. In broad terms, the
distance to the endpoint is the distance a toxic vapor cloud, heat from a fire, or blast waves from an
explosion will travel before dissipating to the point that serious injuries from short term exposures will
no longer occur. Worst-case release scenarios represent the failure modes that would result in the worst
possible off-site consequences, however unlikely, and do not represent more likely smaller releases that
would potentially result in smaller impacts.
The worst-case toxic endpoints for all qualifying facilities do not overlap with the 2017 OPSP Update
site. The closest worst-case toxic endpoint for this facility is greater than two miles from the 2017
OPSP Update site. Therefore, the potential for an accidental release of acutely hazardous air pollutants
to impact the 2017 OPSP Update site is considered less than significant.
OPERATIONAL ODORS
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS): Impact Air-3 has been revised to
specify it applies to proposed residential use under the 2017 OPSP Update, and the less-than-
significant conclusion related to operational odors would remain substantially unchanged from the
2011 OPSP.
Revised Impact Air-3: Possible Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Operational Odors.
Development anticipated under the OPSP may expose sensitive receptors to odors
through development of new residential and non-residential development that may
be sources of odors near sensitive receptors. Such exposure would represent a less-
than-significant impact.
The uses proposed in the 2017 OPSP Update area – residential and office/R&D – are not uses
considered to generate substantial odors. As a closed landfill, the landfill in the OPSP area also is not a
source of substantial odors and there is no known history of substantial odor complaints in the area.
Therefore, while the 2017 OPSP Update will add residential uses to the area, which are considered
odor-sensitive receptors, there are no substantial sources of odors such that potential odor issues would
occur. The 2011 EIR had already considered the existing live-aboard boats and assumed the possibility
of odor-sensitive daycare uses in the area, so the location of odor-sensitive uses would not be new and
the impact would be substantially the same.
The potential for odor impacts related to the construction period is discussed under Construction-
Related Impacts, below.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change Impact Air-4 or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion related to
construction-period impacts, but requires the addition of mitigation measure Air-4c to address health
risk to proposed on-site residents (whereas on-site residents were not previously proposed). Mitigation
measure Air-4b relates to Phase I activities not part of the 2017 OPSP Update, and is not applicable to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 6-7
Impact Air-4: Construction Period Dust, Emissions and Odors. Construction of development
projects under the OPSP would result in temporary emissions of dust, diesel
exhaust and odors that may result in both nuisance and health impacts. Without
appropriate measures to control these emissions, these impacts would be
considered significant.
Dust and Criteria Air Pollutants
The 2017 OPSP Update does not substantially change the nature of construction activities or potential
to generate dust and criteria air pollutant emissions. Mitigation Measure Air-4a (below) from the 2011
EIR to implement BAAQMD recommended dust-control measures would remain applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update.
The current BAAQMD Guidelines significance thresholds for construction-related criteria air
pollutants and precursors are:
• Average daily ROG, PM2.5, and NOx emissions greater than 54 lb/day;
• Average daily PM10 emissions greater than 82 lb/day.
The 2011 EIR did not compare construction emissions to thresholds, because the BAAQMD
Guidelines applicable at the time did not contain numeric thresholds for construction impacts and such
quantification was not generally performed at the time. However, the 2011 EIR noted that the project
would result in potentially significant construction emissions and dust impacts before mitigation. While
the 2011 EIR did not quantify construction emissions, construction of residential land uses generates
generally the same or less dust and emissions (on a “per acre” basis) than construction of office/R&D
land uses, so impacts would be substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP.
In addition, the analysis for the 2017 OPSP Update also incorporates mitigation measure Air-4c
(below), requiring lower-emitting construction equipment to be used in the 2017 OPSP Update area,
which will reduce construction emissions to less than the BAAQMD thresholds. Thus, although the
BAAQMD-recommended methodologies used to estimate emissions are different between the 2011
EIR and this SEIR (CalEEMod instead of URBEMIS), the mitigated construction criteria air pollutant
impacts from the 2017 OPSP Update are expected to be lower than the mitigated impacts from the
2011 EIR. Following mitigation, maximum construction-period emissions from the 2017 OPSP Update
area were determined to be 2.9 lb/day ROG, 0.54 lb/day PM2.5, and 42 lb/day NOx (compared to a
threshold of 54), and 0.56 lb/day PM10 (compared to a threshold of 82), which are below threshold
levels.
Odors
The 2017 OPSP Update does not substantially change the nature of construction activities or potential
to generate construction-period odors from the 2017 OPSP Update area, and the impact related to
construction-period odors would remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP.
While a portion of the Phase II area of the 2017 OPSP Update area involves development of an area
containing a landfill, landfill materials will be removed from that area as a part of Phase I activities
fully addressed in the 2011 EIR and mitigation measure Air-4b related to refuse relocation would not
be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
Health Risk
The BAAQMD significance thresholds for health risks and hazards from a single source are:
• An excess lifetime cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million;
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
• A noncancer (chronic or acute) HI greater than 1.0; and
• An incremental increase in the annual average PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 μg/m3.
The BAAQMD 2017 CEQA significance thresholds for health risks and hazards from cumulative
sources are:
• An excess lifetime cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million;
• A noncancer (chronic or acute) Health Index greater than 10.0; and
• An incremental increase in the annual average PM2.5 of greater than 0.8 μg/m3.
These thresholds were evaluated for both off-site receptors as well as on-site residents that move in
prior to construction of later phases and emissions from off road equipment and on-road trucks were
analyzed using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency regulatory air
dispersion model (AERMOD) (USEPA 2016, 2017).
The 2011 EIR did not compare quantified risks to thresholds, because the BAAQMD Guidelines
applicable at the time did not contain numeric thresholds for construction and such analyses were not
generally performed at the time. While it is not possible to compare risks and hazards directly since
they were not quantified in the 2011 EIR, construction health risks associated with the 2017 OPSP
Update are identified as being less than significant with mitigation, which is the same conclusion as in
the 2011 EIR. Although the 2017 OPSP Update has the potential to marginally increase health risk
impacts by extending the duration of construction and including additional onsite residents adjacent to
construction areas, this SEIR also includes mitigation measure Air-4c (below) for projects in the 2017
OPSP Update area, which include more stringent mitigation on construction emissions and would act to
further reduce impacts from those identified in the 2011 EIR to reach a level of less-than-significant.
Following mitigation, maximum construction-period health risks in and around the 2017 OPSP Update
area were conservatively determined to be excess lifetime cancer risk of 9.6 in one million (compared
to a threshold of 10), a noncancer Health Index of 0.01 (compared to a threshold of 1), and annual
average PM2.5 of 0.07 μg/m3 (compared to a threshold of 0.3).
Following mitigation, cumulative maximum construction-period health risks in and around the 2017
OPSP Update area were determined to be excess lifetime cancer risk of 15 in one million (compared to
a threshold of 100), a noncancer Health Index of 0.02 (compared to a threshold of 10), and annual
average PM2.5 of 0.15 μg/m3 (compared to a threshold of 0.8).
Mitigation Measure
Air-4a: Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter
Emissions during Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and
PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short-term health impacts
to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided.
Dust (PM10) Control Measures:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during
windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all
times.
• Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 6-9
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles.
• Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend
beyond the construction site.
• Post a publically visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other
construction emissions:
• The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or
BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road
vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and
subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent
NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most
recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011.
• Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel
equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This
would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk
materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running
continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site.
• Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel
powered equipment. Each project shall ensure that emissions from all
construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed
40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any
equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
repaired immediately.
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to
avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors).
• Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
New Mitigation Measure
Air-4c: Construction Equipment Standards and Construction Emissions
Minimization Plan. All off-road construction equipment greater than 25
horsepower shall have engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4
Final off-road emission standards. If a particular piece of off-road equipment that
meets these standards is technically not feasible; the equipment would not produce
desired emissions reduction due to expected operating modes; installation of the
equipment would create a safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator; or,
there is a compelling emergency need to use off-road equipment that does not meet
these standards, the Contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
equipment (i.e., Tier 3 Engine with Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control
Strategy (VDECS), Tier 3 Engine with Level 2 VDECS, Tier 3 Engine with
alternative fuel), and the Contactor shall develop a Construction Emissions
Minimization Plan (CEMP) to describe the process used to identify the next
cleanest piece of off-road equipment and the steps that will be taken to reduce
emissions of criteria air pollutants to the greatest extent practicable. The CEMP
shall be submitted the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to
using the equipment.
With implementation of the dust and emissions reduction presented in mitigation measures Air-4a and
Air-4c, the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction in the 2017 OPSP Update
area would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
OPERATIONAL RELATED IMPACTS
More Significant Conclusion (LTS conclusion changed to LTS with MM): While the changes
proposed under the 2017 OPSP Update would not result in substantially changed operational
emissions, the updated methodology used in this SEIR calculates increased emission levels that are
higher than those reported in the 2011 EIR. Therefore, Impact Air-5 and the less-than-significant
conclusion have been revised and Mitigation Measure Air-5 has been added.
Revised Impact Air-5: Operational Air Quality Impacts. Operation under the OPSP would result in
permanent emissions of ozone precursor pollutants and particulate matter,
including emissions of reactive organic gasses (ROG) above threshold levels,
which would. These impacts would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
Regional Air Quality Impacts
The current BAAQMD Guidelines significance thresholds for construction-related criteria air
pollutants and precursors are:
• Average daily ROG, PM2.5, and NOx emissions greater than 54 lb/day;
• Average daily PM10 emissions greater than 82 lb/day;
• Maximum Annual ROG, PM2.5, and NOx emissions greater than 10 tons/year;
• Average daily PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons/year.
Operational emissions were modeled for the 2017 OPSP Update area using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.1, using trip information from the traffic study for this
SEIR, as shown in Table 6.1.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 6-11
Table 6.1: 2017 OPSP Update Area Net Operational Emissions
Source Description ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum annual emissions in tons/year
Mobile (i.e., traffic) 1.2 3.2 4.4 1.2
Area (i.e., consumer products, architectural coatings,
and landscaping equipment) 8.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Energy Use (Electricity and Natural Gas) 0.2 2.2 0.2 0.2
Other 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0
Total maximum annual emissions 10.2 6.1 4.6 1.4
Total maximum annual emissions for entire OPSP 10.7 6.6 5.5 1.7
Maximum annual emission threshold 10 10 15 10
Above threshold? yes no no No
Average daily emissions in pounds/day 55.6 33.5 25.3 7.9
Average daily emissions for entire OPSP 59 36 30 9
Maximum annual emission threshold 54 54 82 54
Above threshold? yes no no No
The average daily and maximum annual operational emissions associated with OPSP operation are
below the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA significance thresholds for all pollutants except ROG.
The 2011 EIR calculated emissions using a previous methodology (the URBEMIS model) and
concluded that operational emissions would be below applicable significance thresholds and therefore
less-than-significant. While residential use does not generally have higher emissions than office/R&D,
the analysis for the 2017 OPSP Update uses revised modelling techniques (CalEEMod instead of
URBEMIS), and the new modeling does generally result in higher emissions calculations for all uses.
Criteria pollutant emissions calculated for this SEIR are higher than in the 2011 EIR primarily because
the revised modelling techniques calculate higher area ROG emissions from consumer products and
higher NOx emissions from natural gas combustion and mobile sources.
The following mitigation measure would mitigate operational ROG emissions:
New Mitigation Measure
Air-5: Emissions Offset Fee or Ultra-Low VOC. One of the following measures a), b)
or c) shall be implemented.
a) Prior to occupancy of the final buildings at full buildout of the Project, the
Project Applicant or its designee shall pay a one-time mitigation offset fee to
the BAAQMD Bay Area Clean Air Foundation (Foundation) in an amount to
be determined at the time of the impact. This fee is intended to fund emissions
reduction projects to achieve reductions of 0.9 tons per year of ozone
precursors, the estimated tonnage of operational-related ROG emissions offsets
required to reduce the ROG average daily and annual operational emissions
below the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day and 10 tons
per year, respectively if full buildout of the OPSP occurs. To qualify under this
mitigation measure, the specific emissions reduction project must result in
emission reductions within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin that are real,
surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and would not otherwise be achieved
through compliance with existing regulatory requirements or any other legal
requirement.
OR
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-12 2017 OPSP UPDATE
b) Instead of payment of an offset fee outlined above, the impact could be
reduced through a reduction in area emissions of ROG resulting from use of
paint at the site. Instead of payment of an offset fee, the applicant could
alternatively require use of zero- or ultra-low VOC paints with a VOC content
of less than 45 grams per liter at the site. This requirement shall apply to all
use of paint in the 2017 OPSP Update area, including both exterior paint and
interior paint for both areas maintained by building management and areas
under private ownership or use. If chosen instead of payment of an offset fee
outlined above, this requirement shall be part of all lease or property sale
agreements in the 2017 OPSP Update area and shall be enforced through
building management and/or home owners associations.
OR
c) If the State or BAAQMD enact regulations that require zero- or ultra-low VOC
paints with a VOC content of less than 45 grams per liter to be used
exclusively at the site by the time the final phase of 2017 OPSP Update area
development is operational, the mitigation offset fee or additional lease or sale
agreement constraints outlined above will not be required.
The implementation of mitigation measure Air-5(a) would mitigate operational ROG emissions by
offsetting them though payment of fees toward implementation of reductions in the air basin. The
current process for payment of offset fees is detailed below. Per the above mitigation, payment of offset
fees will proceed according to BAAQMD procedures when initiated. The Project Applicant or its
designee would enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with BAAQMD’s Foundation.
The MOU will include details regarding the funds to be paid and the timing of the emissions reductions
project. Acceptance of this fee by BAAQMD will serve as an acknowledgment and commitment by
BAAQMD to: (1) implement an emissions reduction project(s) within a time frame to be determined
based on the type of project(s) selected, after receipt of the mitigation fee to achieve the emission
reduction objectives specified above; and (2) provide documentation to the City of South San Francisco
and to the Project Applicant describing the amount of and the project(s) funded by the mitigation fee,
including the amount of emissions of ROG reduced (tons per year) within the SFBAAB from the
emissions reduction project(s).
The implementation of mitigation measure Air-5(b) would mitigate operational ROG emissions by
reducing them through restrictions on the type of paint used at the site, which would reduce emission of
ROG below significance levels.
The implementation of mitigation measure Air-5(c) would mitigate operational ROG emissions
through consistency with regulations that would restrict the type of paint used in the region (if such
regulations are adopted), which would reduce emission of ROG below significance levels.
Thus the implementation of any one of the three mitigation options Air-5(a), Air-5(b), or Air-5(c)
would reduce net emission levels to below significance thresholds and therefore reduce the impact to
less-than-significant levels after mitigation.
Carbon Monoxide
According to BAAQMD’s screening criteria for CO in its updated BAAQMD Guidelines, projects are
considered less than significant with respect to local CO concentrations if:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the
county’s congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation
plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 6-13
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour.
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel,
parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
The traffic study (see Chapter 16) shows that the maximum peak hour traffic volumes at study
intersections are below 44,000 vehicles per hour (or 24,000 vehicles per hour where mixing is limited,
such as at underpasses) under existing and future cumulative scenarios and both with and without the
project.
This project is consistent with the applicable congestion management program established by the
county’s congestion management agency, and traffic volumes at study intersections would not exceed
CO threshold levels. Therefore, the project will meet all the criteria at key intersections near the project
site and the impact with regard to CO is less than significant, consistent with conclusions in the 2011
EIR.
CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Less Significant Conclusion (SU conclusion reduced to LTS with MM): The 2011 EIR significant and
unavoidable impact related to Clean Air Plan consistency would no longer be applicable as the OPSP
would be consistent with the updated Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. Similarly, changed guidelines and
methodologies since the 2011 EIR have resulted in some revisions to the emission levels. Additionally,
the inclusion of residential units in the 2017 OPSP Update area results in changes to potential impacts
from toxic air contaminants. However, all OPSP impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels
through implementation of identified mitigation and no additional cumulatively considerable impact or
mitigation is necessary.
The 2011 EIR identified a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact due to conflict with the Clean
Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan has since been revised and there would no longer be a conflict or
significant impact in this regard.
As discussed above, while current more sensitive modeling methodologies resulted in identification of
a significant operational air pollutant impact, which had previously been identified as a less-than-
significant impact, this impact could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with identified
mitigation. Additionally, some revisions to impact statements and mitigation measures are required to
address the change in use to residential but would not change overall significance conclusions. The
BAAQMD significance thresholds are either set at the level at which a project’s individual emissions
would be cumulatively considerable or cumulative thresholds are also discussed in the impact
discussion above, and therefore, no additional impacts would be considered cumulatively significant.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-14 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page has been intentionally left blank
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 7-1
7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides information on biological resources in the 2017 OPSP Update area. H. T. Harvey
& Associates, who prepared the Biological Resources Report for the 2011 EIR, updated their report for
the 2017 OPSP Update. This chapter is based on the updated report, dated April 19, 2017, the full text
of which is included in Appendix E.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The footprint of the 2017 OPSP Update remains within the area analyzed in the 2011 EIR and there
have been no substantial changes in the use or nature of the site. To determine whether biological site
conditions and habitat conditions had changed since the 2011 EIR, the 2017 OPSP Update area was
visited by H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., on March 8, 2017,
and H. T. Harvey & Associates plant ecologist Matthew Mosher and K. Hardwicke on March 16, 2017.
H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D. additionally assessed the
potential suitability of the Northern Coastal Salt Marsh habitat for special-status marsh species such as
the California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) on March 8, 2017 (previously called the
California clapper rail) and determined that the area does not provide suitable habitat.
The only noticeable change in biological conditions on the 2017 OPSP Update area, since the 2011
EIR, was a minor increase in the extent of vegetation on the rocked levee slopes along the shoreline.
Otherwise, 2017 conditions were nearly identical to conditions assessed in the 2011 EIR.
The full setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B) and the updated biological
resources report (Appendix E) and summarized briefly below where necessary to relate specifically to
the 2017 OPSP Update.
Biotic Habitats
Four biotic habitats/land use types occur in the 2017 OPSP Update area, as summarized below. The
acreage of each habitat and land use type within the 2017 OPSP Update boundary is shown in Table
7.1 and their distribution within the 2017 OPSP Update area is shown on Figure 7.1.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Table 7.1: Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the 2017 OPSP Update Area
Biotic Habitat/Land Use Total Area (acres) – 2017 OPSP Update Area
Developed/Landscaped 34.72
California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub 0.09
Armored Rock Levee Slope 0.13
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 0.06
Total 35
Developed/Landscaped: Comprised of hardscaped roads, buildings, parking lot surfaces, paved trail
surfaces, ornamental and landscaped areas (typically irrigated with a mulch base), and irrigated turf,
developed/landscaped area provide low or very low suitability for special status species or habitat. This
land use occurs over the majority of the 2017 OPSP Update area.
California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub: Dominated by non-native annual grass species and
scattered shrubs, there is only a very small area (0.09 acres) of this habitat type on the 2017 OPSP
Update site, with an additionally approximately 18.8 acres throughout the remainder of the larger OPSP
area. This habitat does not support separate native grass habitat or substantial special status species.
Birds and other grassland-associated species may forage in the southwestern corner of the OPSP area
(outside the 2017 OPSP Update area) on occasion, but the patch of grassland is likely too small to
support nesting pairs of these species.
Armored Rock Levee Slope: This habitat type, which is found along some portions of the coastline in
both the 2017 OPSP Update area and the larger OPSP site, is primarily composed of large rock rip-rap
on varying degrees of slope approximately 10-15 feet wide at the edge of the water and tidal flats,
which extends downslope from the OPSP boundary in a number of areas. Vegetation is found between
the rocks and bordering the top of the slopes and is dominated by non-native species. This habitat type
in the OPSP area provides limited wildlife habitat because of their unyielding surfaces, lack of
vegetation, and proximity to open marine water, but is nonetheless utilized by several species for
foraging or refugia including rocky shore crab species, rocky shore-associated birds. The levee slopes
also could provide habitat for nuisance species such as Norway rats, black rats (Rattus rattus), and feral
cats, which are known to prey upon native wildlife species.
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh: This habitat type occurs in both the 2017 OPSP Update area and the
larger OPSP area in the intertidal zone in strips or larger areas surrounding the rock levees, and is
influenced daily by rising and falling tides within the bay. Salt marsh habitats form unique ecological
communities in the San Francisco Bay that support wildlife species adapted to a saline environment
and frequent cyclic changes in water levels, as well as several more widely-adapted common species.
This habitat type in and adjacent to the OPSP area supports foraging shorebirds and common birds
though due to the limited extent, underdeveloped vegetation, and isolation from known populations, is
unsuitable for supporting salt-marsh adapted mammal species and the California Ridgway’s rail
(formerly the California clapper rail).
Open Water: While not part of the land acreages in Table 7.1 above (because it is not land), open water
habitat is present in the 2017 OPSP Update area in the Oyster Cove Marina, as well as the surrounding
Bay waters. The San Francisco Bay supports a thriving community of estuarine life. A diversity of
invertebrates provide an ample prey base for common fish, which in turn provide food sources for
seabirds and marine mammals. Suitable habitat for the Olympia oyster, which consists of solid surfaces
to which the larvae can easily attach, is distributed throughout the shoreline of the OPSP area.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 7-3
Figure 7.1: Habitat Map
Source: H. T. Harvey and Associates Ecological Consultants, April 2017
Note: This figure omits the remainder of the Phase II area, which is comprised entirely of “Developed and Landscaped” area.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 7-5
Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats
CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are “threatened, rare, or
endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of
environmental review of the Project, special-status species have been defined as described below.
Impacts to these species are regulated by some of the federal, state, and local laws and ordinances
described under “Regulatory Setting” below.
For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are:
• Listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) as threatened, endangered, proposed
threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species.
• Listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as threatened, endangered, rare, or a
candidate species.
• Listed by the California Native Plant Society as rare or endangered on Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.
For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are:
• Listed under the FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a
candidate species.
• Listed under the CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species.
• Designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a California species of
special concern.
• Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as a fully protected species (birds at §3511, mammals
at §4700, reptiles and amphibians at §5050, and fish at §5515).
Special-Status Plants and Wildlife
Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix E map the records of plants and wildlife, respectively, in the vicinity of
the 2017 OPSP Update area, and Table 2 in Appendix E lists the potential for special status species to
occur in the vicinity of the 2017 OPSP Update.
As noted above, the biological resources report (Appendix E) determined that current biological
conditions in the area were nearly identical to conditions as assessed in the 2011 EIR. Consistent with
2011 EIR conclusions, the biological resources report determined that no special-status plant species
have the potential to occur on-site. There has also been no change in the special-status wildlife species
known or expected to occur regularly on or near the 2017 OPSP Update area. The potential suitability
of the Northern Coastal Salt Marsh habitat for special-status marsh species such as the California
Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (previously called the California clapper rail) was
reassessed, and where it had previously been determined that the site could potentially provide habitat
for that species, it has now been determined that the area does not provide suitable habitat.
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S./State
Open water and intertidal habitats of San Francisco Bay, and associated wetlands and shoreline areas
(extending up to the high tide line or the upper limits of wetlands, whichever is higher) are considered
Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act and/or Waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act. These wetlands and aquatic habitats are also important habitats for a variety
of animal species. The approximate upslope limits of such areas are shown on Figure 7.1. The 2017
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
OPSP Update does not propose any development in areas that may be considered wetlands and/or
Waters of the U.S.
REGULATORY SETTING
There have been no substantial changes to the biological resources regulatory setting of the 2017 OPSP
Update area. The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B).
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CRITERIA OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
The 2017 OPSP Update may have effects on the biological resources in the area. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating project
impacts and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines “significant effect on the
environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area
affected by the proposed project.” Under CEQA Guidelines section 15065(a)(1) and Appendix G, a
project’s effects on biotic resources may be significant when the project would:
1. have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory
2. have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community (e.g.,
oak woodland) identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4. have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act
5. interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites
6. conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance
7. conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 7-7
HABITAT MODIFICATION
Terrestrial Habitats
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact Bio-1
or the less-than-significant conclusion as the terrestrial habitat modification under the 2017 OPSP
Update remains substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP.
Development of the 2017 OPSP Update area may result in the redevelopment of up to 34.72 acres of
developed and landscaped areas and loss or conversion of up to 0.09 acres of California annual
grassland/coyote brush scrub habitat that are located outside USACE jurisdiction. The loss of this
habitat acreage is within the impact identified in the 2011 EIR and would not be a new or changed
impact.
Direct Impacts to Wetland or Aquatic Habitats
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update area includes
wetland or aquatic habitats along the shoreline but does not propose development in those areas.
Therefore, Impact Bio-2, mitigation measure Bio-2b, and the less-than-significant with mitigation
conclusion remains applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update area. Because the 2017 OPSP Update
implements avoidance of this habitat (mitigation measure Bio-2b), mitigation measures Bio-2a, -2c,
and -2d, would not apply to the 2017 OPSP Update area, though they would remain applicable to
development in other portions of the OPSP.
A total of 0.06 acres of northern coastal salt marsh and 0.13 acres of armored rock levee slope within
the approximate limits of USACE jurisdiction are present within the 2017 OPSP Update area and open
water is adjacent to much of the site. While development in other portions of the OPSP could occur
within wetland or aquatic habitats, no 2017 OPSP Update activities are proposed to occur within these
wetland or aquatic habitats and the impact has been reduced for the 2017 OPSP Update and mitigation
measures Bio-2a, Bio-2c, and Bio-2d have been deleted in their entirety for development in the 2017
OPSP Update area, but would continue to apply to the remainder of the OPSP. The potential for
indirect impact from nearby development is addressed separately below.
Indirect Impacts to Water Quality and Sensitive Habitats
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impacts Bio-3 and Bio-4 or mitigation measures Bio-3a and -3b and -4, which would remain
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update, or the significance conclusions of less-than-significant with
mitigation as the potential for indirect impact of adjacent/nearby wetland and aquatic habitat remains
substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP.
Although no 2017 OPSP Update development will occur in wetland or aquatic habitats, some grading,
construction, and landscaping will occur in close proximity to, and upslope from, sensitive aquatic
habitats. There is thus some potential for construction activities to result in indirect effects on these
habitats and on water quality in adjacent aquatic habitats. This impact and the mitigation measures to
reduce it to less-than-significant levels are unchanged from the 2011 EIR.
Habitat for and Individuals of Non-Breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the following
Impact Bio-5 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential of the 2017 OPSP Update to
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
impact non-breeding special-status wildlife species remains substantially the same as under the 2011
OPSP.
2017 OPSP Update construction would not result in injury or mortality of any non-breeding individuals
of these species, which are mobile enough to avoid construction equipment. There would be no
substantial loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any of these species, as the 2017 OPSP Update
footprint primarily includes already developed and/or heavily impacted areas, which remains
unchanged since the 2011 EIR.
Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Potentially Nesting Special-Status Birds
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact and mitigation measure Bio-6, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the
biological conditions and potential to disturb nesting special-status birds remain substantially the same
as under the 2011 OPSP.
Some special-status bird species could potentially nest in or adjacent to the 2017 OPSP Update area but
are not expected to be significantly impacted by the OPSP. These species include the white-tailed kite
and loggerhead shrike, for which there is a very low probability of nesting, as well as the San Francisco
common yellowthroat, Alameda song sparrow, and Bryant’s savannah sparrow, which have a
somewhat higher probability of nesting in wetland vegetation at the periphery of the site. 2017 OPSP
Update activities could result in loss of a small amount of marginal nesting and foraging habitat and
breeding individuals could be temporarily disturbed or displaced by construction-related noise and
activity, which has not changed since the 2011 EIR.
DISTURBANCE OR LOSS OF SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Burrowing Owls
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM conclusion reduced to LTS): Conditions have not
changed substantially since the 2011 EIR or due to the 2017 OPSP Update. The 2017 OPSP Update
portion of the OPSP does not contain substantial habitat for burrowing owls, so mitigation measures
Bio-7a though -7c would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update and Impact Bio-7 would be less-
than-significant with no mitigation required for that area.
Burrowing owls occur at scattered locations throughout the South San Francisco Bay Area where low
grasslands and ruderal habitats support ground squirrel colonies. There is only 0.09 acre of grassland
habitat on the 2017 OPSP Update site and no ground squirrel burrows were found during
reconnaissance surveys at the site. Therefore, there would not be the potential for a significant impact
to burrowing owls due to development in the 2017 OPSP Update area and mitigation measures Bio-7a
through Bio-7c would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update area, though they would continue to
apply to the remainder of the OPSP.
Increased Recreational Disturbance on Wildlife
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact Bio-8
or the less-than-significant conclusion as the biological conditions and potential for increased
recreational activity to disturb wildlife remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP.
Increased recreational usage by proposed residents would not substantially change the conclusions,
which already assumed substantial human activity.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 7-9
Impacts of Lighting on Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact Bio-9 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the biological conditions and potential for
increased lighting to impact wildlife remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP.
Residential lighting is not generally more intensive than lighting for office/R&D development and
would not substantially change the conclusions, which already assumed substantial amounts of
artificial lighting.
Impacts to Migratory Birds from Buildings and Lighting
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following impact or significance conclusion as the biological conditions and
potential for bird strikes remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. Changes to the
specifics of building design and use under the 2017 OPSP Update would not result in substantial
changes under this topic, although the mitigation has been updated to include currently-recommended
measures to reduce potential for bird strikes.
Impact Bio-10: Increased Potential for Bird Strikes. Relative to the height of the existing
structures, several of the OPSP’s proposed buildings will project higher, creating
new, somewhat larger obstacles along the flight path of migrating and foraging
birds. Therefore, the OPSP could result in the creation of a new strike hazard for
migrating. Although large-scale injury or mortality of birds due to collisions with
buildings is not anticipated, because of the potential for such mortality to occur,
the OPSP is considered to have a potentially significant impact to migratory birds.
The 2017 OPSP Update area is located along the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds, and the
juxtaposition of wetland, shoreline, and open water habitats used by birds results in large-scale
movements of birds along the edge of San Francisco Bay, both during long-distance movements (such
as migration) and during daily movements between roosting and foraging habitats.
Within the 2017 OPSP Update area, there is some potential for birds to collide during daytime and
nocturnal flights with structures such as windows of proposed buildings. Although proposed buildings
are likely to be at a lower height than most migrating birds will be flying, the OPSP would create
potential bird strike hazards at elevations that do not currently exist. Although large-scale injury or
mortality of birds due to collisions with buildings has not been reported from the West Coast,
depending on the design of the buildings there is some potential for such mortality to occur in the
absence of mitigation measures. This potential for impact would not be substantially changed with the
changes under the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measures
Revised Bio-10a: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts to Birds. During design of any building
greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a qualified
biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to
identify lighting-related measures to minimize the effects of the building’s lighting
on birds. Such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures,
shall be incorporated into the building’s design and operation.
• Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for
obstruction lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than continuous light, red
light, or rotating beams
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
• Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light
towards the ground.
• Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not
required for public safety.
• When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the
buildings shall examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-wide
lighting, which may include:
o Installing motion-sensitive lighting.
o Using desk lamps and task lighting.
o Reprogramming timers.
o Use of lower-intensity lighting.
• Windows or window treatments that reduce transmission of light out of the
building shall be implemented to the extent feasible.
Revised Bio-10b: Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk. During design of any
building greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a
qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues
to identify measures related to the external appearance of the building to minimize
the risk of bird strikes. Such measures, which may include the following and/or
other measures, shall be incorporated into the building’s design.
• Minimize the extent of glazing.
• Use low-reflective glass.
• Use window films, mullions, blinds, or other internal or external features to
“break up” reflective surfaces rather than having large, uninterrupted areas of
surfaces that reflect, and thus may not appear noticeably different (to a bird)
from, vegetation or the sky.
• Use non-reflective tinted glass.
• Use window films to make windows visible to birds from the outside.
• Use external surfaces/designs that “break up” reflective surfaces rather than
having large, uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and thus may not
appear noticeably different (to a bird) from, the sky.
Implementation of the building design and lighting measures presented in mitigation measures Bio-10a
and Bio-10b will avoid and minimize impacts to migrating and foraging birds as a result of increased
bird strikes and the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
TREES PROTECTED BY THE CITY’S TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS conclusion reduced to NI): There are no protected trees in the
2017 OPSP Update portion of the OPSP, therefore, Impact Bio-11 is not applicable to the 2017 OPSP
Update, which would have a no impact conclusion related to protected trees.
No trees of protected size or that were known to be protected by special designation from the City
director (as demarcated by a fence) were found to occur on-site. The City’s Tree Preservation
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 7-11
Ordinance is applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update, which will meet or exceed landscape tree
requirements.
IMPACTS OF IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM reduced to NI): The 2017 OPSP Update does not include
any in-water construction. Therefore, impacts Bio-12 through Bio-15 and related mitigation measures
are not applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update, which would have no impact related to in-water
construction.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN OR NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): No portion of the OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP
Update area, is within a conservation plan area. The 2011 EIR conclusion of no impact in this regard
would remain applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
CUMULATIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as biological conditions remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP and the
2017 OPSP Update would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to
biological resources.
The cumulative condition as it relates to biological resources remains substantially the same as under
the 2011 EIR. With the exception of isolated protected open spaces, the 2017 OPSP Update vicinity is
largely built up, and few areas for new development remain. However, infill development and
redevelopment of existing areas are likely to occur in the OPSP vicinity, including the remainder of the
OPSP. For example, the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project is proposed
to the north of the OPSP area. All of these projects are each expected to complete (or have completed)
their own separate CEQA reviews, and to address any potential impacts therein by mitigating them to a
less than significant level.
With implementation of the mitigation measures above, no significant impacts are expected as a result
of implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update. The proposed 2017 OPSP Update will not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-12 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page has been intentionally left blank
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 8-1
8
CULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The changes in the 2017 OPSP Update do not change the potential for cultural resources impacts.
However, changes in CEQA to clarify inclusion of tribal cultural resources and changes in
recommended standard procedures to address unknown resources at developed sites have resulted in
revised statements with the same conclusions related to potential discovery of unknown resources.
Preparation of this section used information from the 2011 EIR and updated records searches through
the Northwest Information Center and the Native American Heritage Commission, included as
Appendix F.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
There have been no changes to the cultural resources environmental setting of the OPSP site, including
the OPSP Update area. The full setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B) and
summarized briefly below.
The Oyster Point Business Park was developed in the early 1980s. Prior to the current development, the
portion of the OPSP site that was not marshland at the Bay margins (subsequently filled for
development) was part of larger grazing lands/cattle operations that had been established by 1810.
Before historical-period use, the general San Francisco Bay Area was known to have been inhabited by
Native Americans, known generally as part of the Coastanoan or Ohlone tribal groups.
REGULATORY SETTING
There has been one change to the cultural resources regulatory setting of the OPSP site, including the
OPSP Update area, as described below. The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011
EIR (Appendix B).
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
A recent addition to CEQA is the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill
52), which is intended to minimize conflict between Native American and development interests. AB
52 adds "tribal cultural resources" to the specific cultural resources analyzed under CEQA, as reflected
by the addition of item 5 below.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 8-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Criteria of Impact Significance
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, a significant impact will
occur if the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would:
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5;
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature;
or
4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
5. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is:
a. listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or included in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b. a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
DISTURBANCE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following significance conclusions. The impact statement and mitigation
measures have been revised to clarify that tribal cultural resources are included as cultural resources
per the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act.
Revised Impact Culture-1: Disturbance of Unidentified Paleontological Resources,
Archaeological Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, or Human Remains.
During earth-moving activities at the OPSP site, it is possible that unidentified
paleontological resources, archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, or
human remains could be uncovered and disturbed.
The 2017 OPSP Update site has been previously disturbed and is covered with business park
development, roadways, and landfill debris. A cultural resources records search was performed again to
be sure no new information had become available since the 2011 EIR.
The records search was performed by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State
University, part of the California Historical Resources Information System (included in Appendix F).
The NWIC noted that buildings at the site could be at or nearing historic age. Given development of the
site in the early 1980s, as under the 2011 EIR, none of the buildings at the site are at historic age. The
CHAPTER 8: CULTURAL RESOURCES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 8-3
NWIC confirmed that there are no known cultural resources at the Project site and moderate potential
for discovery of unrecorded historic-period archaeological and/or Native American resources given the
characteristics and history of the site and area.
A search of the Sacred Lands Files by the Native American Heritage Commission was also performed
(included in Appendix F), and confirmed that there are no records of Native American Sacred Lands in
the vicinity of the OPSP. While no tribes requested consultation under AB52, as recommended, the
Native American tribes historically active in the area were contacted via letter on August 15, 2017. No
response has been received, indicating that there are no additional concerns of tribal cultural resources
that could be disturbed in the area.
While there are no known cultural resources at the Project site, records searches have identified a
moderate potential for discovery of unrecorded historic-period archaeological and/or Native American
resources during disturbance of native soils. Similarly, while there is no indication that human remains
are present at the Project site, the potential exists for discovery during ground disturbing activities.
Revised Mitigation Measures
Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the
event that any previously unidentified paleontological resources, tribal cultural
resources, or archaeological resources are uncovered during site preparation,
excavation or other construction activity, all such activity shall cease until these
resources have been evaluated by a qualified paleontologist or archaeologist and
specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these resources.
Culture-1b: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Take Appropriate Action in
Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that
any human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such activity shall cease until these resources have been
evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken if necessary in
coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission.
Incorporation of mitigation measures Culture-1a and -1b will reduce the impacts associated with
possible disturbance of unidentified paleontological resources, archaeological resources, tribal cultural
resources, or unidentified human remains at the OPSP site, including the 2017 OPSP Update area, to a
level of less than significant.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 8-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page has been intentionally left blank
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 9-1
9
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes geologic and geotechnical aspects related to the 2017 OPSP Update.
Kleinfelder, Inc., who prepared the geology and soils chapter in coordination with Lamphier-Gregory
for the 2011 EIR, reassessed the 2017 OPSP Update for this SEIR given current setting information
and the changes with the 2017 OPSP Update. This chapter is based on their assessment, included as
Appendix G. The updated discussion is based on a review of the following documents, which have
become available or been modified since the 2011 EIR:
• California Building Code, Title 24, 2014.
• City of South San Francisco, “2010 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of South San
Francisco Annex”, June 29, 2011.
• PMC, “City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan”, February 13, 2014.
• California Geological Survey, “Earthquake zones of Required Investigation, San Francisco
South Quadrangle”, November 17, 2000.
REGULATORY SETTING
The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B). The following
changes to the regulatory section have occurred since the 2011 EIR.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
In 2011, ABAG released a Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) updating the 2006 HMP. The
2011 HMP lists seven earthquake related hazards (fault-related ground surface rupture, seismic
shaking, earthquake induced landslides, liquefaction, dynamic/seismic compaction, lateral spreading
and tsunamis) and four weather related hazards (flooding, landslides, wildfires and drought). The
2011 HMP was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in March 2011.
Participating local governments, such as the City of South San Francisco, have prepared annexes to
the 2011 HMP to specifically explain how the HMP applies to their jurisdiction. The City’s annex
was released on June 29, 2011. The annex details previous disaster occurrences, assesses risk and
vulnerability, describes natural hazard exposure associated with land uses, critical facilities and
infrastructure within the City.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (2010)
The California Building Code (CBC) was developed to incorporate modifications to the International
Building Code (developed by the International Conference of Building Officials) required by
California law and statute and has been adopted by most jurisdictions in California, including the City
of South San Francisco, to oversee construction. The CBC defines four Seismic Zones in California,
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
which are ranked according to their seismic hazard potential. Zone 1 has the least seismic potential
and Zone 4 has the highest seismic potential. The City of South San Francisco is located in Seismic
Zone 4 and thus development is required to comply with all design standards applicable to Seismic
Zone 4.
The earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety Code section 19100 et seq.) requires that
structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes.
Specific minimum standards for seismic safety and structural design to meet earthquake protection
requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the 2016 CBC.
For earthquake design, Chapter 16 of the 2016 CBC shall be used. To estimate seismic design
parameters, site class estimation is required. Based on the existence of Bay Mud and landfill material,
the site can be classified as Site Class E (soft soils) and/or Site Class D (stiff soils). For the code level
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), the site could experience peak ground accelerations (PGA)
of 0.6g to 0.7g.
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SEISMICITY
The full setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B). The following changes to the
setting section have occurred since the 2011 EIR.
STRONG GROUND SHAKING
A recent publication prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey regarding earthquake probabilities in the
San Francisco Bay Area (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2014) concludes
that there is a 72 percent chance that one of the major faults within the Bay Area will experience a
major (M6.7+) earthquake during the period of 2014-2043. As has been demonstrated recently by the
1989 (M6.9) Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1994 (M6.7) Northridge earthquake, and the 1995 (M6.9)
Kobe earthquake, earthquakes of this magnitude range can cause severe ground shaking and
significant damage to modern urban areas.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is
considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, geotechnical, and seismic effects of
the proposed OPSP can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts; and, (2)
geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of construction
impacts is whether construction of the OPSP will create unstable geologic conditions that would last
beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is based on the degree
to which the site geology could produce hazards to people or structures from earthquakes, ground
shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or other geologic hazards, features or events.
According to CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in:
1. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 9-3
2. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking;
3. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and seismic-
induced landslides;
4. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving landslides;
5. Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would become unstable as
a result of the OPSP) and which could potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
6. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards;
7. Development located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and property;
8. The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils.
9. Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater;
10. The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature.
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Geo-1 or the less-than-significant conclusion as there are no known faults at the site, and this has not
changed since the 2011 OPSP.
EXPOSURE TO STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact Geo-2, mitigation measures Geo-2a, -2b, and -2c, or the less-than-significant with mitigation
conclusion as the known seismically active region has not changed since the 2011 OPSP and
construction standards, while updated, are substantially the same and remain applicable to
development under the 2017 OPSP Update.
SEISMICALLY INDUCED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION AND GROUND
SURFACE SETTLEMENT
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impacts Geo-3 and -4, mitigation measures Geo-3a, -3b, and -4, or the less-than-significant with
mitigation conclusions as site soil characteristics have not changed since the 2011 OPSP and the
changes in the 2017 OPSP Update would not change requirements or conclusions.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
VARIABLE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impacts Geo-5 and -6, mitigation measures Geo-5a, -5b, -5c, and -6, or the less-than-significant with
mitigation conclusions as the subsurface conditions have not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
LANDFILL GAS AT BUILDING-SOIL INTERFACE
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update area (Phases III
and IV), the proposed residential development, is outside the landfill area. Impact Geo-7 and
mitigation measure Geo-7 therefore would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update area
SETTLEMENT OF LANDFILL MATERIALS
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM conclusion reduced to LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update
area (Phases III and IV), the proposed residential development, is outside the landfill area. Impact
Geo-8 and mitigation measures Geo-8a and -8b would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update
area, which would not have the potential to be impacted by settlement of landfill refuse.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN LANDFILL AREAS
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM reduced to LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update area (Phases
III and IV), the proposed residential development, is outside the landfill area. Impacts Geo-9 through
-13 and mitigation measures Geo-9a, -9b, -9c, -10, -11, -12, and -13would not be applicable to the
2017 OPSP Update area.
SOIL EROSION
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact Geo-14, mitigation measure Geo-14, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as
the potential for soil erosion and requirement to include best management practices to reduce soil
erosion potential have not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Geo-15 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the low potential for expansive soils at the site has
not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
LANDSLIDES
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion related to landslides as the lack of potential for landslides has not changed since the 2011
OPSP.
VOLCANIC HAZARDS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion related to volcanic hazards as the lack of potential for volcanic hazards have not changed
since the 2011 OPSP.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 9-5
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion related to septic systems as the 2017 OPSP Update area is serviced by the city’s sewer
system, which has not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion related to unique geologic features as the lack of unique geologic features at the site has
not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
WAVE SUSTAINABILITY OF BAYSIDE OPEN SPACE
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM reduced to NI): Impact and mitigation measure Geo-16
relate to the Crescent Park and Beach, which is located outside of the 2017 OPSP Update area.
Therefore, this impact and mitigation measure are not applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update, which
would have no impact related to beach wave stability.
CUMULATIVE GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as geological conditions remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP and
would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to geological
resources.
With implementation of the mitigation measures above, no significant impacts are expected as a result
of implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update and other area development will also be required to
comply with applicable building standards. The proposed 2017 OPSP Update will not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 10-1
10
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential significance of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) impacts related
to the 2017 OPSP Update. Because of changes in recommended emission modeling methodologies and
change in use to residential on a portion of the site, Ramboll Environ prepared a new assessment of
GHGs for this SEIR, as included in full in Appendix D.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
While the environmental setting is generally unchanged from the 2011 EIR, some information is
repeated here to provide an understanding of terms and concepts used in this discussion.
GREENHOUSE GASES
The primary GHG generated by human activity is carbon dioxide CO2. Fossil fuel combustion,
especially for the generation of electricity and powering of motor vehicles, has led to substantial
increases in CO2 emissions (and thus substantial increases in atmospheric concentrations). Other GHGs
that can result from human activity include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and
fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6).
The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its
emissions, and its global warming potential (GWP),1 and is expressed as a function of how much
warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. Thus, GHG emissions are typically measured in
terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
REGULATORY SETTING
The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B). The following
changes to the regulatory section have occurred since the 2011 EIR.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State of California Executive Orders
The California Air Resource Board (CARB) is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of
state and local air pollution control programs in California. There are currently no state regulations in
1 The potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
California that establish ambient air quality standards for GHGs. However, California has passed laws
directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions, and several state legislative actions
related to climate change and GHG emissions have come into play since the 2011 EIR, as follows.
Executive Order B-30-15. Governor Brown signed EO-B-30-15 on April 29, 2015, establishing a
statewide GHG reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as an interim target intended to
keep the state on track to achieve S-3-05’s target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Senate Bill X 1-2. Senate Bill X1-2, signed by Governor Brown in April 2011, enacted the California
Renewable Energy Resources Act. The law obligates all California electricity providers, including
investor-owned and publicly-owned utilities, to obtain at least 33% of their energy from renewable
resources by the year 2020.
Senate Bill 350. SB 350 (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction
Act of 2015, was signed by Governor Brown on October 7, 2015. SB 350 increased the standards of the
California Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) program by requiring that the amount of electricity
generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources be increased
from 33 percent to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. The Act requires the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission to establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency
savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency
savings in existing electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers by January 1, 2030.
State of California Building Codes
California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR) requires that the design of building shells and building components conserve
energy, which also acts to reduce GHG emissions. These standards are updated periodically to consider
and incorporate new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Residential buildings built to 2016
Title 24 Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017, will use about 28 percent less energy for
lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating compared to the 2013 Title 24 Standards,
which went into effect on January 1, 2014. The 2013 Standards are approximately 24 percent more
energy efficient for residential buildings, and 30 percent more energy efficient for nonresidential
buildings, compared to the previous 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.2
California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California
Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR), known as CALGreen, in 2008 as the nation’s first green
building standards. The 2010 edition of the code established voluntary standards on planning and
design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air quality. The mandatory
provisions of the code became effective January 1, 2011. CALGreen refers to the mandatory Building
Standards described above, and also includes voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs for cities and
counties that wish to adopt more stringent green building requirements
2 California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CA, available at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 10-3
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
As discussed in Chapter 6: Air Quality, South San Francisco is located within the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD issues their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD
Guidelines) to assist lead agencies in evaluating and mitigating air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.
The 2011 EIR was being prepared as the 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines were being updated for the 2010
draft and the 2011 EIR compared the OPSP to both thresholds. The latest draft of the BAAQMD
guidelines was issued in May 2017 and includes thresholds consistent with the 2010 draft BAAQMD
Guidelines assessed in the 2011 EIR.
Sustainable Communities Strategy/Plan Bay Area
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the federally recognized metropolitan planning
organization for the nine county Bay Area, which includes San Mateo County and the City of South
San Francisco. In July 2017, the Plan Bay Area 2040 was jointly approved by the Association of Bay
Area Governments’ (ABAG) Executive Board and by MTC as a strategic update to the previous Plan
Bay Area 2013. The Plan includes the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2040
Regional Transportation Plan. The Sustainable Communities Strategy lays out how the region will meet
GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board. CARB’s targets call for the region to
reduce per capita vehicular GHG emissions 15 percent by 2040.
Clean Air Plan
As discussed in Chapter 6: Air Quality, South San Francisco is located in the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Basin and is subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the latest update of which, the Bay Area 2017
Clean Air Plan, was adopted in April 2017, since the 2011 EIR. The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes
goals and actions intended to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes the Bay Area’s first-ever comprehensive Regional Climate
Protection Strategy (RCPS), which identifies potential rules, control measures, and strategies that the
BAAQMD can pursue to reduce GHG in the Bay Area. Measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan
addressing the transportation sector are in direct support of Plan Bay Area and include the region’s
Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Highlights of the 2017
Clean Air Plan control strategy include:
• Limit Combustion: Develop a region-wide strategy to improve fossil fuel combustion efficiency at
industrial facilities, beginning with the three largest sources of industrial emissions: oil refineries,
power plants, and cement plants.
• Stop Methane Leaks: Reduce methane emissions from landfills and oil and natural gas production
and distribution.
• Reduce Exposure to Toxics: Reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants by adopting more
stringent limits and methods for evaluating toxic risks at existing and new facilities.
• Put a Price on Driving: Implement pricing measures to reduce travel demand.
• Advance Electric Vehicles: Accelerate the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
• Promote Clean Fuels: Promote the use of clean fuels and low or zero carbon technologies in trucks
and heavy-duty vehicles.
• Accelerate Low Carbon Buildings: Expand the production of low-carbon, renewable energy by
promoting on-site technologies such as rooftop solar and ground-source heat pumps.
• Support More Energy Choices: Support community choice energy programs throughout the Bay
Area.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
• Make Buildings More Efficient: Promote energy efficiency in both new and existing buildings.
• Make Space and Water Heating Cleaner: Promote the switch from natural gas to electricity for
space and water heating in Bay Area buildings.
To achieve its goals, the 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies 85 emissions control measures for
implementation by BAAQMD in collaboration with local government agencies, the business
community, and Bay Area residents. The control measures target the following emissions sources:
• Stationary sources (40 measures);
• Transportation (23 measures);
• Energy (2 measures);
• Buildings (4 measures);
• Agriculture (4 measures);
• Natural and working lands (3 measures);
• Waste management (4 measures);
• Water (2 measures);
• Super-GHGs (3 measures); and
• Further study (miscellaneous stationary, building, and agriculture sources) (11 measures).
South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
The City adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan in 2014, the City of South San Francisco Climate
Action Plan. This plan estimated community-wide GHG emissions of 548,600 metric tons CO2e in
2005 and a target reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline levels by 2020, and includes various
reduction measures to meet that goal.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist) contains a list of effects that may be
considered significant, including relating to GHGs. Implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update would
have a significant effect on the environment if it were to:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Less Significant Conclusion (SU conclusion changed to LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update is consistent
with the Climate Action Plan, which has been adopted since the 2011 EIR. Additionally, the 2017
OPSP Update area would result in reduced GHG emission rates due to the inclusion of residential
uses, and updated modeling further reduces previously-calculated construction-period and operational
GHG emissions. Impact GHG-1 (combined with Impact GHG-2) is revised and the conclusion is
reduced to less-than-significant. Mitigation measure GHG-1 is not necessary to further reduce
emissions and is therefore not applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 10-5
Impact GHG-1: Construction-Period and GHG Emissions. Temporary construction-related
exhaust would be an additional source of GHG emissions that could contribute to
significant impacts on the environment. This is a less-than-significant impact.
Impact GHG-2: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. New development in the OPSP area
would be an additional source of construction-period and operational GHG
emissions, primarily through consumption of energy for transportation and energy
usage, which could contribute to significant impacts on the environment. However,
projects are required to implement all applicable measures of the Climate Action
Plan and emission rates will be below applicable threshold levels. This impact is
potentially less-than-significant.
The relevant BAAQMD Guidelines significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions are:
• Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, or
• Emissions at or below an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons (MT) CO2e per service population
(residents and employees) per year
Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
Since the 2011 EIR, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan, which is a qualified GHG reduction
strategy. The Climate Action Plan includes reduction measures to be implemented to meet city-wide
reduction goals.
Many of the Climate Action Plan’s reduction measures are targeted to city-wide strategies that are not
directly applicable to development projects. The project is located near the ferry terminal and would
include pedestrian/bicycle connections and walkways and participate in a Transportation Demand
Management program to promote transit and reduce trips (contributing to Measures 1.1 through 1.3).
The project would include new tree plantings (Measure 3.4) and would meet current standards of
energy and water efficiency (Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and occupants would participate in recycling for
waste reduction (Measure 5.1).
Development projects in the city, including those in the 2017 OPSP Update area, are required to
complete a GHG Compliance Checklist during the plan review process demonstrating that all
applicable requirements are met. The 2017 OPSP Update will comply with the Climate Action Plan and
impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Efficiency Threshold
While comparison to a quantified threshold is not strictly necessary if a project complies with a
qualified GHG reduction strategy – which it does, as discussed above – the GHG emissions were also
quantified to allow for comparison to the analysis in the 2011 EIR.
BAAQMD has not adopted a threshold of significance specific to construction-period GHG. In the
2011 EIR, construction and operational GHG emissions were considered separately. However, it is now
standard practice among jurisdictions in the Bay Area to amortize construction emissions over the
lifetime of the building (conservatively estimated at 40 years) and add these emissions to annual
operational emissions to compare against the adopted annual threshold above.
Operational GHG emissions were modeled for the 2017 OPSP Update area using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.1, using trip information from the traffic study
for this SEIR. Construction GHG emissions were calculated using methodologies consistent with
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
CalEEMod, using a project specific construction list and schedule. Emissions model inputs and results
are included in Appendix D. The results of the GHG emission modeling are shown in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: 2017 OPSP Update Area GHG Emissions
Source Description
GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Mobile (i.e., traffic) 3,914
Area (e.g., landscaping, maintenance) 62.8
Electricity 3,837
Natural Gas 2,444
Water 1,345
Waste Disposal 425
Vegetation Amortized 1 -1.2
Construction Amortized 1 188
Total 12,216
Service Population 2 5,001
Emissions per Service Population 2.4
Total emissions for entire OPSP 16,004
Emissions per Service Population with entire OPSP 2.5
BAAQMD Service Population Threshold 4.6
Above Threshold? no
1 Construction and vegetation are amortized over 40 years (assumed lifetime of development).
For vegetation, the negative value indicates CO2e sequestration, as opposed to emissions.
2 Service population is equal to 1.78 residents per dwelling unit and 376 sf per Phase II employee
plus 35 employees for Phase III and IV.
The stationary source emissions (from diesel emergency generators) would have additional annual
GHG emissions of approximately 58 MT CO2e per year. These are not included in the table above,
because as stationary sources, are compared to a different threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year.
Stationary source emissions from the project would be below the stationary source threshold.
While the 2011 EIR did not quantify construction-period GHG emissions for Phases II, III, and IV, an
estimate of about 13,000 MT of GHG emissions for those phases would have been calculated assuming
2011 OPSP land uses and 2011 EIR modeling methodologies. The GHG emissions calculated for
Phases II, III, and IV under the 2017 OPSP Update land uses and with current methodologies total
7,525 CO2e. There is no substantial difference in construction emissions between the campus-style
office/R&D uses proposed in the 2011 OPSP and the multi-family residential uses proposed under the
2017 OPSP Update, and the reduction in construction emissions from that was assumed under the 2011
EIR is due largely to vehicle fleets having become lower-emitting over time. Mitigation measure GHG-
1 from the 2011 EIR is not necessary to reduce emissions of the 2017 OPSP Update. Measures
identified to reduce traffic and air quality emissions would act to further reduce construction-period and
operational GHG emissions, including mitigation measure Traf-1 requiring a transportation demand
management plan and mitigation measure Air-4a requiring construction dust and emission control.
The 2011 EIR calculated operational GHG emissions for buildout of the entire OPSP area at 4.64 MT
CO2e per service population per year. Because modeling methodologies have changed since the 2011
EIR, the emissions for the entire OPSP have been recalculated at 2.5 MT CO2e per service population
per year, which would be below the threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year and the
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 10-7
impact would be less than significant. This reduction in emission rates is due to the use of updated
modelling techniques which incorporate reductions due to new regulations for mobile vehicles,
building energy efficiency, and electricity intensity. In addition, the 2017 OPSP Update includes multi-
family residential uses, which generally have a higher population increase compared to GHG emission
increase ratio than office/R&D uses and therefore generally result in reduced rates based on service
populations.
Construction-period and operational GHG emissions in the 2017 OPSP Update area would be lower
than those assumed in the 2011 EIR due to both the change in use on a portion of the site to residential
and updated modeling, which takes into account more current regulatory reductions, the OPSP impact
related to GHG emissions, including the 2017 OPSP Update area, would be less than significant, a
reduction in significance from the significant and unavoidable impact identified in the 2011EIR.
CONSISTENCY WITH GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLANS
Same Conclusion (Conclusions remains NI): The Clean Air Plan has been updated and the South San
Francisco Climate Action Plan has been adopted since the 2011 EIR but the 2017 OPSP Update
remains consistent with relevant plans and the no additional cumulative impact conclusion remains
unchanged from the 2011 EIR.
Consistency with the Climate Action Plan is discussed above and the 2017 OPSP Update would be
consistent with that plan.
BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals
and control measures. The impact would be significant if the project would conflict with or obstruct
attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures. The primary goal of the
2017 Clean Air Plan as it relates to GHG emissions is:
• Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements, regional
policies, or large stationary source reductions, and these are not directly applicable to the 2017 OPSP
Update. However, the 2017 OPSP Update would be consistent with all rules and regulations related to
construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of energy and
water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and
green waste requirements (Waste Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4) and the required
TDM plans (see Traf-1) will contribute to trip reduction programs (Transportation Control Measure
TR2), and improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure
TR9).
The 2017 OPSP Update does not conflict with applicable control measures, is generally consistent with
the Clean Air Plan as well as the City’s Climate Action Plan. Emissions were analyzed in this SEIR per
the BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies
take into account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan
and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard.
Therefore, as determined in the 2011 EIR, there would be no impact in relation to consistency with GHG
reduction plans.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 11-1
11
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes hazardous materials topics as they relate to the 2017 OPSP Update.
Kleinfelder, Inc., who prepared this chapter in coordination with Lamphier-Gregory for the 2011 EIR,
reassessed the 2017 OPSP Update for this SEIR given current setting information and the changes
with the 2017 OPSP Update. This chapter is based on their assessment, included as Appendix G.
REGULATORY SETTING
The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B). There have been no
substantial changes to the regulatory section since the 2011 EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
There have been no substantial changes to the hazardous materials environmental setting relevant to
the 2017 OPSP Update. The full setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B) and
updated hazardous materials sites in the vicinity have been updated below.
Appendix G includes a discussion of changes in setting that do not change the analysis or conclusions
related to the 2017 OPSP Update, including an update of the hazardous materials sites within or near
the 2017 OPSP Update area. As in the 2011 EIR, while nearby sites have been identified as having
prior releases of hazardous materials, there is no reported evidence of active leaks or contamination
from these sites affecting soil or groundwater that could migrate to the 2017 OPSP Update area or
represent significant releases in the 2017 OPSP Update area requiring any additional actions so these
are not further discussed.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project’s environmental impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
3. Would the project produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
5. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? Would the Project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?
6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?
7. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP
Update requires revisions to the Impact Haz-1 statement to specify that it applies to residential uses,
and would not change mitigation measures Haz-1a through -1e, or the less-than-significant with
mitigation conclusion as the uses in the 2017 OPSP Update area would require routine
transportation, use or disposal of household hazardous materials and require compliance with
applicable regulations, plans and programs, which remains unchanged since the 2011 EIR..
This section pertains to recurring transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of long
term operation. One time transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials related to construction
and development is discussed in the following sections.
Revised Impact Haz-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. While
specific tenants have not yet been identified, research laboratories are likely to
handle materials considered to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or
carry a risk of fire or explosion. The change from proposed office/R&D uses to
residential uses would involve the use of household hazardous waste such as
vehicle components and cleaners. The risk of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and
potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation measures Haz-1a, -1b, and -1e remain applicable to the office/R&D and proposed
residential uses in the 2017 OPSP Update area and require adherence to fire and safety codes,
inspection prior to occupancy, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Mitigation
measures Haz-1c and -1d remain applicable to any office/R&D in the 2017 OPSP Update area and
require participation in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Hazardous Waste Generator
programs as applicable.
Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-1a through -1e would reduce the impact of routine
transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant through
compliance with existing regulations, plans, and programs as discussed specifically in the measures to
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 11-3
ensure adequate safety levels are reached and maintained throughout the life of the 2017 OPSP
Update.
ACCIDENTAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE
Disturbance of Landfill Materials
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM changed to LTS): While a portion of the Phase II area
of the 2017 OPSP Update area involves development of an area containing a landfill, landfill
materials will be removed from that area as a part of Phase I activities fully addressed in the 2011
EIR. Impact and mitigation measure Haz-2 related to disturbance of landfill materials would not be
applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update. The residential development proposed in Phases III and IV is
outside the landfill area.
While the removal of landfill refuse from the Phase II area is proposed as a part of approved Phase I
activities to occur prior to 2017 OPSP Update area development, the 2017 OPSP Update would not
have the potential for significant impacts related to development of the 2017 OPSP Update.
Hazardous Building Materials
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact and mitigation measure Haz-3, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the
potential for hazardous building materials in structures to be demolished remains unchanged since
the 2011 EIR.
Construction on a Landfill Cap
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM conclusion changed to LTS): While a portion of the
Phase II area of the 2017 OPSP Update area involves development of an area containing a landfill,
landfill materials will be removed from that area as a part of Phase I activities fully addressed in the
2011 EIR. Impact Haz-4 and mitigation measures Haz-4a through -4e related to building on a landfill
cap would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
Operational Hazards
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact and mitigation measure Haz-5, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as the
potential for accidental release of laboratory chemicals remains unchanged since the 2011 EIR.
This impact and mitigation remain applicable to office/R&D uses in the 2017 OPSP Update area and
would mitigate the potential for hazards, including those to proposed residential uses in the area.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS NEAR SCHOOLS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion related to hazardous materials near schools as the lack of schools in the vicinity have not
changed since the 2011 OPSP.
The OPSP area is not located within one-quarter mile of a school site. Therefore the OPSP, including
the 2017 OPSP Update area, would have no impact based on proximity to school sites.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM reduced to LTS): While a portion of the Phase II area
of the 2017 OPSP Update area involves development of an area containing a landfill, landfill
materials will be removed from that area as a part of Phase I activities prior to 2017 OPSP Update
area development. Impact Haz-6 and mitigation measures Haz-6a through -6d related to construction
activities on a landfill cap would not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS): The wording of Impact Haz-7 has
been revised to remove wording relating to the previous airport land use plan, which has been
revised since the 2011 EIR. The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the less-than-significant
conclusion, as the increased building heights under the 2017 OPSP Update remain within height
levels considered safe in relation to the airport.
Revised Impact Haz-7 Airport Land Use Plan. The OPSP would be located within the jurisdiction
of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport.
According to the East of 101 area plan, the most stringent height limits in South
San Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville (the area between
Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue), which is south
of the site. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits building heights to an
elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 to 14 stories, in the
most restricted areas, increasing at a slope of 20:1 to a height of 361 feet above
mean sea level. Since the tallest building portion would not exceed 161 feet in
height, Building heights in the OPSP would be in compliance with the Airport
Land Use Plan. The impact of the OPSP on the Airport Land Use Plan is less-
than-significant with no mitigation warranted.
The airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the 2011
EIR. The OPSP area, including the 2017 OPSP Update area, is mapped in an area where critical
aeronautical surfaces are between approximately 400 and 500 feet, which is well above the proposed
building heights.1
ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as the general roadway design and requirements for adequate access have not changed
since the 2011 OPSP.
WILDLAND FIRES
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as the lack of wildfire risk in the vicinity have not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November 2012, Exhibit IV-5.
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 11-5
CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Haz-8 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the hazardous materials conditions remain
substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP and would not result in cumulatively considerable
impacts.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page has been intentionally left blank
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 12-1
12
HYDROLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section presents an evaluation of potential impacts to hydrology and water quality related to the
2017 OPSP Update. Kleinfelder, Inc., who prepared this chapter in coordination with Lamphier-
Gregory for the 2011 EIR, reassessed the OPSP for this SEIR given current setting information and
the changes with the 2017 OPSP Update. This chapter is based on their assessment, included as
Appendix G. The updated discussion is based on a review of the following documents, which have
become available or been modified since the 2011 EIR:
• National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map. San Mateo County,
California. Panel 42 OF 510. Effective Date October 16, 2012.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency. Letter of Map Revision. Case No. 17-09-1343A.
April 19, 2017.
• State Water Resources Control Board. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Water
Code Division 7 and Related Sections, April 2017.
• California Department of Water Resources. The National Flood Insurance Program in
California. Quick Guide Coastal Appendix: Planning for Sea-Level Rise. October, 2016.
• Tetra Tech. Technical Memorandum. Short-term Flood Protection Plan for Oyster Point
Landfill. February 24, 2016.
• California Department of Transportation. Construction Site Monitoring Program Guidance
Manual. August, 2013.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The full environmental setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B). The following
changes to the setting section have occurred since the 2011 EIR.
FLOODING
While portions of the 2017 OPSP Update site were identified on the latest (October 16, 2012) Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as being in a flood
hazard zone, FEMA subsequently issued a Letter of Map Revision determining that the 2017 OPSP
Update area is not within a flood hazard zone. This decision applies to the site now and will be
reflected in updated FIRMs, which are issued regularly by FEMA. Per the FEMA decision, no portion
of the 2017 OPSP Update area is subject to flood hazards.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
REGULATORY SETTING
The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B). The following
changes to the regulatory section have occurred since the 2011 EIR.
STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
NPDES Permit Requirements
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances
to the ground such as excavation and has been updated since the 2011 EIR, though these changes are
not substantial as they relate to 2017 OPSP Update development.
All construction and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) activity would be in compliance
with the Construction General Permit Order 2009-2009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and
2012-0006-DWQ.
Sea Level Rise
The California Department of Water Resources presented updated sea level rise scenarios in their
California Climate Science and Data for Water Resources Management in 2015. The future sea level
rise scenarios associated with planning and permitting development in potentially susceptible areas in
the San Francisco Bay Area are:
• a sea level rise of 24 inches by 2050; and
• a sea level rise of 66 inches by 2100.
These values represent the upper end of the range of sea level rise estimates and are consistent with
preliminary state recommendations for 100-year sea level rise. These values are meant to ensure that
projects take these potentially high estimates into account when planning infrastructure and
development projects and have changed slightly from those the 16- and 55-inch assumptions used in
the 2011 EIR.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring hydrology impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines
thresholds:
1. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
2. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
3. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 12-3
4. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
5. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
8. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
9. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of climate-induced sea level rise or the
failure of a levee or dam?
10. Would the project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Landfill Leachate
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM reduced to LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update area, the
proposed residential development, is outside the landfill area. Impact Hydro-1 and mitigation
measure Hydro-1 related to the potential for landfill leachate due to building on a landfill cap would
not be applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update.
Erosion and Stormwater Pollutants
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact and mitigation measure Hydro-2, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion as
the potential for contamination of Bay water due to stormwater pollutants and erosion remains
substantially unchanged since the 2011 EIR.
GROUNDWATER DEPLETION/ RECHARGE
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion related to groundwater depletion as the 2017 OPSP Update area is nearly fully covered
with impervious area under existing conditions and is located in the former Bay margin and not used
for groundwater supply and therefore development under the 2017 OPSP Update would not result in
the potential for groundwater depletion, which has not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact and mitigation measure Hydro-3, or the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential for
increased erosion or siltation during construction has not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
CHANGES IN STORMWATER RUNOFF
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as the requirement for control of runoff and lack of potential for changes in stormwater
runoff have not substantially changed since the 2011 OPSP.
OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as the OPSP development area and potential to degrade water quality have not changed
since the 2011 OPSP.
STRUCTURES WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact
conclusion as the potential for flood hazards have not substantially changed since the 2011 OPSP.
FLOODING FROM LEVEE OR DAM FAILURE OR SEA LEVEL RISE
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Hydro-4 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential for flooding due to levee or dam
failure or sea level rise have not substantially changed since the 2011 OPSP.
INUNDATION BY SEICHE, TSUNAMI OR MUDFLOW
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Hydro-5 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the avoidance of development in bay fringe areas
and the limited potential for inundation have not substantially changed since the 2011 OPSP.
CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Hydro-6 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the hydrologic conditions remain substantially the
same as under the 2011 OPSP and would be mitigated by identified measures.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-1
13
LAND USE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes existing land uses, adopted General Plan land use classifications, and zoning
designations on and around the OPSP. This chapter also describes the applicable plans and policies that
guide development in the OPSP area, including the change in use from office/R&D to residential in a
portion of the 2017 OPSP Update area, and evaluates the OPSP’s consistency with these plans and
policies and other existing land use regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
There have been no substantial changes to the land use environmental setting of the OPSP site,
including the OPSP Update area. Development of the area has proceeded according to area plans and
recent development is specified in Chapter 16: Transportation and Circulation. The full environmental
setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix A).
REGULATORY SETTING
Since the 2011 EIR, the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan was updated. The information in
this setting section is updated from the City’s 2015 Housing Element. Otherwise, there are no
substantial changes in the land use regulatory setting of the 2017 OPSP Update, though additional
regulations have been added that relate to the change in use on a portion of the 2017 OPSP Update area
to residential. The full environmental setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix A).
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999 as amended) provides long-term guidance and
policies for maintaining and improving the quality of life in, and the resources of, the community, both
man-made and natural. The General Plan provides direction for the City’s growth and development.
The site’s General Plan designation is Business Commercial, Coastal Commercial, and Park and
Recreation.
As part of the approvals sought for the 2017 OPSP Update, amendments to the General Plan and OPSP
would be adopted changing the Phase III and IV areas to allow High-Density Residential at a density of
up to 100 units per net acre (excluding public roadways from gross acreage) and revising related
policies. These amendments would include changes to the land use designation for the 2017 OPSP
Update area as well as text edits to applicable policies in order to ensure development conforms to
those policies.
The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing
opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below. In order to balance community
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
interests and assure continued support for medium- and high-density housing in South San Francisco,
the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls for the preservation of “the scale and character of
established neighborhoods” and the protection of “residents from changes in non-residential areas.”
Consistent with this policy, the General Plan Land Use map designates medium-and high-density
residential areas along major transit corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts with existing
neighborhoods. The City’s political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multi-family
housing development with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups. Policy 2-G-
6 calls for the maximization of “opportunities for residential development, including through infill and
redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial
operations.” Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of “mixed-use residential, retail, and office
development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide
increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such
developments can help to foster identity and vitality.”
East of 101 Area Plan
The OPSP site is part of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San
Francisco General Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the
potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City’s traditional industrial East of 101 area.
Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the OPSP. In
addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the OPSP includes a
Design Element to help achieve high-standard development.
South San Francisco Municipal Code and the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan District
Policies set forth in the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan are implemented through enforcement
of the City’s zoning regulations as presented in the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
(SSFMC). Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specific zoning districts and impose
standards on those uses. With approval of the 2011 OPSP, the site was zoned Oyster Point Specific
Plan District (OPSPD), with development per the OPSP. The OPSP and underlying zoning would be
amended with approval of the 2017 OPSP Update.
CONSISTENCY DISCUSSION
The following is a discussion of the 2017 OPSP Update’s consistency with applicable policies of the
General Plan, including the 2015 Housing Element.
Land Use
Policy 2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued
economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco’s
prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.
The 2017 OPSP Update would result in office/R&D uses and residential uses to take advantage of
the opportunities of this Bay-side site and ferry service. The addition of residential uses with the
2017 OPSP Update represents more of a balance between jobs and housing at the site and
surrounding area.
Policy 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility
that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations.
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-3
The 2017 OPSP Update would provide a large employment center and residential development
near the new ferry terminal and would be expected to link into the existing BART and Caltrain
commute via bicycle, buses and/or shuttles.
Policy 2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and
redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations.
The 2017 OPSP Update represents rezoning of a portion of the site to provide a new opportunity
for residential development. While located in the historically industrial East of 101 area, the
portion of the OPSP currently proposed for residential uses is on a peninsula to the north of and not
adjacent to industrial uses. The OPSP area already includes residents on house boats in the marinas
and is approved for recreational uses, so the introduction of residential development would not
represent an entirely new type of use for that area. The potential for conflicts of an environmental
nature has been assessed in this SEIR.
Policy 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where
they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased
access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors
where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes mixed-use amenity/retail/restaurant space in both office/R&D and
residential developments that is expected to support those developments and would provide vitality
to the use of the ground floor space near the public Crescent Park and Beach and the ferry terminal.
Policy 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and
to promote alternative transportation modes.
The 2017 OPSP Update represents creation of a new mixed-use community near the new ferry
terminal and Bay Trail and with access via bicycle, busses, and/or shuttles to BART and Caltrain.
Policy 2-G-9 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas, and
encourage inclusion of childcare centers in non-residential developments.
While the programming of the amenity/retail/restaurant space in the 2017 OPSP Update area has
not yet been determined, a childcare center is a potential use that could be proposed within that
space.
East of 101 Area
Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses.
The proposed 2017 OPSP Update would result in office/R&D, residential, and supporting
retail/restaurant/commercial uses, which are also near other OPSP area development such as a
hotel, other office/R&D, recreation/open space, uses, and retention of the marinas.
Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and
development uses.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes office/R&D uses in a campus-like setting.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Policy 3.5-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area.
The policy is further described in the General Plan as follows:
This has been a long-standing City policy. Although virtually the entire East of
101 area lies outside the projected Year 2006 65CNEL airport noise contour, the
area is nonetheless sensitive both from noise and safety perspectives. The 1991
Agreement for Aircraft Noise Mitigation between the City and the San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) stipulates that if South San Francisco approves
policies or new development allowing noise sensitive uses to be established east
of U.S. 101, despite any stated objections on the part of SFO, the City will
reimburse all noise mitigation funding to SFO. However, with the Agreement set
to lapse in August 2001, South San Francisco could permit noise-sensitive uses
to locate in the East of 101 area after this time without forfeiting the monies
provided the airport for noise retrofitting in the city. However, residential uses
are incompatible with the existing and emerging uses in the area.
The 2017 OPSP Update would rezone a portion of the area to allow for residential development,
which would not comply with this policy. As noted in the description of the policy, the concern is
noise and compatibility with existing and emerging uses in the area. The portion of the 2017 OPSP
Update area currently proposed for residential uses is on a peninsula to the north of and not
adjacent to industrial uses in the area. The OPSP area already includes residents on house boats in
the marinas and is approved for recreational uses, so the introduction of residential development
would not represent an entirely new type of use for that area. Additionally, the potential for
conflicts of an environmental nature, including noise, has been assessed in this SEIR. Given the
location and character of the site, the 2017 OPSP Update could be consistent with the stated intent
of the policy to prevent incompatibilities. However, revision of this policy is proposed as part of
the General Plan amendments for the 2017 OPSP Update to bring the project fully into consistency
with both the intent and the wording of the policy.
Policy 3.5-I-4 Unless otherwise stipulated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East
of 101 area to the maximum limits permissible under Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77.
The 2017 OPSP Update will be designed within allowable building heights under Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77, which are mapped between approximately 400 and 500 feet, well above the
proposed building heights.1
Policy 3.5-I-5 Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot-size.
Per the proposed 2017 OPSP Update, the Floor Area Ratio for the office/R&D and residential uses
in the 2017 OPSP Update area would be determined across the planning area in aggregate, rather
than on a lot-by-lot basis.
Policy 3.5-I-8 Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants,
cafes, support commercial establishments such as dry-cleaners, to meet the
1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November 2012, Exhibit IV-5
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-5
needs of the employees in the East of 101 area. Such uses could be located in
independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses.
The 2017 OPSP Update proposes retail/restaurant/amenity space and the Phase III and IV
residential development, with Phase I and II remains as office/R&D. Programming of the space has
not yet been determined but is expected to serve residents and employees in Oyster Point and
surrounding area.
Policy 3.5-I-10 Prepare a new Concept Plan for the Oyster Point area. Work with the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to reconcile the differing
designations for the area in the City’s General Plan and BCDC’s park priority
use in the San Francisco Bay Plan.
The OPSP is the concept plan for the Oyster Point area and would be revised with the 2017 OPSP
Update. Development in the OPSP area will require coordination with and permitting from BCDC,
consistent with the proposed OPSP and BCDC regulations. Subsequent to this policy, the City
worked with BCDC to amend the Bay Plan to allow for a wider range of uses in and around the
Oyster Point Marina area.
Policy 3.5-I-11 Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand
Avenue or in areas designated Business Commercial.
The 2017 OPSP Update does not include any warehousing or distribution uses.
Policy 3.5-I-13 Facilitate waterfront enhancement and accessibility by:
Establishment of uses that would bring people to the waterfront (see polices
3.5-I-8 and 3.5-I-9);
Establishment of a Bayshore design review area as part of the Zoning
Ordinance; and
Ensuring that the Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan include
specific improvements for shoreline enhancement and accessibility, as
spelled out in the East of 101 Area Plan.
In the OPSP area, office/R&D, residential, and hotel uses will attract employees, residents and
visitors to this waterfront area. Development of a waterfront park and improvements of a
recreational space as well as improvement to open spaces and Bay Trail uses will enhance the
waterfront and its accessibility in the OPSP area. The 2017 OPSP Update area includes the
improvement of 4.32 acres of the adjacent Bay Trail segment.
Transportation
Policy 4.2-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the
arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration
of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce
the total vehicle-miles traveled.
The 2017 OPSP Update represents creation of a new mixed-use community near the ferry terminal
and Bay Trail and with access via walking, bicycle, busses, and/or shuttles to BART and Caltrain.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Residential use will assist in improving the efficiency of the existing shuttle system at Oyster Point
as a complimentary use to the existing and proposed office/R&D.
Policy 4.2-G-10 Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a
City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards.
The OPSP area includes a ferry terminal, though it is located approximately one third to one half
mile from the 2017 OPSP Update area. LOS standards have been used to determine traffic impacts
in this SEIR.
Policy 4.3-G-1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote
bicycle riding for transportation and recreation.
The roadways in the 2017 OPSP Update area will include bicycle lanes and the Bay Trail will be
connected throughout the OPSP area.
Policy 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through
residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
The roadways in the 2017 OPSP Update area will include sidewalks and bicycle lanes and the Bay
Trail will be connected throughout the OPSP area, which provides connections to the ferry
terminal.
Policy 4.3-I-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future
multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office / institutional uses.
Secure bicycle parking will be incorporated into 2017 OPSP Update area development to meet or
exceed City standards.
Policy 4.3-I-6 As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require project
proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage
improvements for new development and redevelopment projects.
The 2017 OPSP Update proposes sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements to
meet or exceed City standards.
Policy 4.4-G-1 Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco.
The location of the 2017 OPSP Update area positions the proposed employment and residential
uses to take advantage of the on-site ferry terminal in addition to the existing East of 101 area
transit service, pedestrian, bicycle, and shuttle connections to BART and Caltrain.
Policy 4.4-I-5 As part of any revisions to the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan, explore the
feasibility of providing or reserving site for a ferry terminal.
The referenced ferry terminal has been constructed and is operational in the OPSP area.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Policy 5.1-G-1 Develop additional park land in the city, particularly in areas lacking these
facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and
employees.
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-7
The 2017 OPSP Update includes approximately 4.32 acres of open space as well as the Bay Trail
in addition to privately owned open space. The remainder of the OPSP includes approximately 6
acres of dedicated open space and park uses in addition to the Bay Trail.
Policy 5.1-G-2 Improve bayfront access along its entire length and endorse the prominence of
this important natural asset.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes the Bay Trail along the shoreline. A privately owned marina is
included in the area the 2017 OPSP Update is addressing. Further, the main roadway through the
OPSP site will be re-aligned as part of Phase I (prior to 2017 OPSP Update development), resulting
in superior access to the Bay.
Policy 5.1-I-2 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks
per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees,
to be located in employment areas.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 5.1-I-3 Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide
features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure 5-1 [of
the General Plan].
The OPSP includes the bay front Crescent Park and Beach and a flexible use recreation area in the
vicinity of the shore as well as open space improvements and improvements to the Bay Trail,
which will meet projected generated demand at build-out (see Chapter 15).
Open Space and Conservation
Policy 7.1-G-1 Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San
Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered,
Threatened, or Rare.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 7.1-G-2 Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands.
The only sensitive habitats with the potential to be affected by the 2017 OPSP Update development
include those in and around the coastal margins, which will be largely avoided during development
(see Chapter 7).
Policy 7.2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to
maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater
resources.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 7.2-G-2 Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant regulations including
those related to water quality (see Chapter 12).
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Policy 7.3-G-1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and
State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air
pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant regulations related to air
quality (see Chapter 6).
Policy 7.3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of
alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus
transit, and carpooling.
The location of the 2017 OPSP Update area positions the proposed employment and residential
uses to take advantage of the on-site ferry terminal in addition to the existing East of 101 area
transit service, pedestrian, bicycle, and shuttle connections to BART and Caltrain.
Policy 7.3-G-3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by
distancing them from one another.
While located in the historically industrial/commercial East of 101 area, the portion of the 2017
OPSP Update area currently proposed for residential uses is on a peninsula to the north of and not
adjacent to industrial uses. The OPSP area already includes residents on house boats in the marinas
and is approved for recreational uses, so the introduction of residential development would not
represent an entirely new type of use for that area. The appropriateness of residential use in the area
in relation to emissions has been assessed in Chapter 6.
Policy 7.3-I-4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install
clean-burning fireplaces and wood stoves.
Residences in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant regulations, which no
longer allow wood-burning fireplaces or stoves in new construction.
Policy 7.5-G-1 Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic,
educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San
Francisco’s identity and quality of life.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for
South San Francisco’s historic, cultural, and archaeological resources.
There are no known historic, cultural, archaeologic or tribal resources in the 2017 OPSP Update
area (see Chapter 8).
Health and Safety
Policy 8.1-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards
in South San Francisco.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant regulations related to
geologic and seismic safety (see Chapter 9).
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-9
Policy 8.2-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would avoid siting buildings in shoreline areas subject
to flooding hazards and would demonstrate proposed finish grade elevations are outside the 100-
year flood hazard area in the Phase II portion of the site. The 2017 OPSP Update would not result
in substantial risk to life and property from flooding (see Chapter 12:Hydrology).
Policy 8.3-G-1 Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle
those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in
accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 8.3-G-2 Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and
transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco.
Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and
handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (EPA), State (DTSC,
RWQCB, Cal OSHA, Cal EPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South
San Francisco) regulations.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant regulations related to
recycling, waste, and hazardous waste (see Chapter 11).
Policy 8.4-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 8.4-G-2 Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens’ needs.
The 2017 OPSP Update is not located in a wildfire risk area and would contribute to relocation and
expansion of the nearest fire station to improve service to the area (see Chapter 8).
Policy 8.4-I-3 Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate
access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the
risk of fire within the City.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant construction and
development standards to minimize risks from fires.
Policy 8.7-G-1 Minimize the risk of life and property from aircraft accidents in South San
Francisco.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 8.7-I-1 Do not permit land uses that pose potential hazards to air navigation in the
vicinity of SFO.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant construction and
development standards to avoid creating aircraft hazards.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Noise
Policy 9-G-1 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of
existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Policy 9-G-2 Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning
decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to
minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.
The 2017 OPSP Update does not propose uses that are substantial generators of noise. The
appropriateness of residential use in the area in relation to noise has been considered in Chapter 14.
Housing Element
Policy 1-1: The City shall implement zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to
meet its 2014 to 2022 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 565
very low income units, 281 low income units, 313 moderate income units, and
705 above moderate income units.
The 2017 OPSP Update adds residential uses to the OPSP area and would contribute toward
meeting housing needs identified in the RHNA. Specifics of affordable housing (whether on-site or
supported through in-lieu fees) have not yet been determined but will comply with relevant City
requirements.
Policy 1-7: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill
and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing
neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations.
The 2017 OPSP Update represents rezoning of a portion of the site to provide a new opportunity
for residential development through redevelopment of a low-intensity business park use. The
portion of the OPSP currently proposed for residential uses is on a peninsula to the north of and not
adjacent to industrial uses. The OPSP area already includes residents on house boats in the marinas
and is approved for recreational uses, so the introduction of residential development would not
represent an entirely new type of use for that specific area. The potential for conflicts of an
environmental nature has been assessed in this SEIR.
Policy 2-4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and
harmonizes with existing neighborhood character and surroundings.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes a design element and development in the area would comply with
design requirements intended to promote quality design for the location.
Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major
environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless
adequate mitigation measures are taken.
There are no major environmental hazards that would affect development in the 2017 OPSP
Update area (see particularly Chapters 6, 9, 11, and 12 for supporting discussion).
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-11
Policy 4-2: The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply
with adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other
property-related crimes.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would be required to comply with relevant safety and
security standards.
Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all
new and existing residential structures.
Combined with related policies immediately below for discussion.
Policy 7-2: When feasible, the City should encourage new developments to be sited to
respond to climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shadow
patterns.
Combined with related policies immediately above and below for discussion.
Policy 7-3: The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving
design and construction techniques in all types of projects (including new
construction and remodeled and rehabilitated structures).
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area will be constructed to current standards and will meet
or exceed relevant energy efficiency standards.
East of 101 Area Plan
Land Use
Goal 1.1 Promote planned industrial, office, and commercial uses in the East of 101 Area,
and discourage other uses that would be inconsistent with these uses.
The 2017 OPSP Update represents rezoning to provide a new opportunity for residential
development in the historically industrial/commercial East of 101 area. The portion of the OPSP
currently proposed for residential uses is on a peninsula to the north of and not adjacent to
industrial uses. The OPSP area already includes residents on house boats in the marinas and is
approved for recreational uses, so the introduction of residential development would not represent
an entirely new type of use for that specific area or one that is necessarily inconsistent with these
uses. The potential for conflicts of an environmental nature has been assessed in this SEIR.
However, revision of this policy is proposed as part of the General Plan amendments to bring the
project fully into consistency with both the intent and the wording of the policy.
Goal 1.2 Encourage development that enhances net revenues to the City.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes residential and commercial uses that will contribute to revenues
to the city through increased property tax and sales tax.
Goal 1.3 Promote development that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes office/R&D uses, and some retail/restaurant uses which will
provide a mixture of job opportunities including upper and moderate income salaries.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-12 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Goal 1.4 Encourage development that respects and is in character with the Bay
environment.
The entire OPSP area, including the 2017 OPSP Update area, reserves the shoreline for the Bay
Trail, which will be improved, as well as a shoreline park and marina area recreation area.
Development is otherwise consistent with the character of development in the area.
Goal 1.5 Provide for the development of more retail services to serve the employees of the
East of 101 Area.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes up to approximately 22,000 square feet of commercial uses in
some office/R&D and residential buildings, which can include community-serving retail, services,
restaurant, and/or building amenity uses.
Goal 1.7 Provide child care facilities in the East of 101 Area.
While the programming of the proposed amenity/retail/restaurant space in the 2017 OPSP Update
area has not yet been determined, a childcare center is a potential use within that space.
Goal 1.8 Encourage the appropriate development of additional hotel facilities in the East
of 101 Area.
The 2017 OPSP Update does not include hotel facilities, but the larger OPSP includes the
demolition of a 30 room inn and construction of one or two hotels with an aggregate total of up to
350 rooms and the 2017 OPSP Update does not change these plans.
Circulation
Goal 2.1 Minimize vehicular circulation impacts.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Goal 2.2 Maintain acceptable levels of transportation systems by achieving an
appropriate balance between system improvements and development
transportation demands.
The change to allow residential development in some areas of the 2017 OPSP Update area would
result in some trips changing to the reverse-commute direction instead. The potential for traffic-
related impacts has been assessed in this SEIR and mitigated as feasible, including construction of
traffic improvements and implementation of Transportation Demand Management programs (see
Chapter 12).
Goal 2.4 Provide for adequate amounts of parking in the East of 101 Area.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area will comply with relevant parking standards (see
Chapter 16).
Goal 2.5 Encourage and support transportation modes other than single-occupancy
automobiles including ridesharing, bicycling, walking and transit.
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-13
The 2017 OPSP Update would provide a large employment center near the ferry terminal and
would be expected to link to that and the existing BART and Caltrain commute via bicycle,
walking, and/or shuttles.
Goal 2.6 Promote the use of public transit to and within the East of 101 Area.
The location of the 2017 OPSP Update area poises the employees and residents to take advantage
of the ferry terminal and transit service from BART and Caltrain.
Public Facilities
Goal 3.1 Provide adequate sanitary sewer system capacity, water supply and other
utilities to serve proposed development in the East of 101 Area.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area, including planned utility improvements, would have
adequate sewer capacity and water supply and other utilities (see Chapter 17).
Goal 3.2 Ensure that new development has appropriate drainage in order to minimize
environmental and flooding problems.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area will incorporate appropriate drainage per applicable
regulations (see Chapter 12).
Goal 3.3 Regulate growth in the East of 101 Area in accordance with the ability of the
Police Department, Fire Department and other public agencies to provide
adequate services.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area, including planned contribution to a relocated and
upgraded fire station, will be adequately served by public agencies (see Chapter 15).
Goal 3.4 Promote water and energy conservation in all new development.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area will meet or exceed water and energy conservation
requirements (see Chapter 17).
Open Space and Recreation
Goal 4.1 Encourage uses which take advantage of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and
the views associated with the Bay.
The entire OPSP area, including the 2017 OPSP Update area, includes the Bay Trail along the
shoreline, which will be improved, as well as a shoreline park and beach and a marina area
recreation area. Views of the shoreline and Bay will be available from on-site development and on
some locations along public roadways.
Goal 4.2 Implementation of the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan in cooperation with the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission to secure a continued public access
trail along the San Francisco Bay Frontage.
The Bay Trail is accommodated along the entire OPSP Bay frontage, including in the 2017 OPSP
Update area.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-14 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Goal 4.3 Preserve and enhance the natural amenities and features of the East of 101 Area
including the views of the San Francisco Bay San Bruno Mountain and San
Bruno Point Hill.
The 2017 OPSP Update would enhance enjoyment of views of the Bay from the site by bringing in
more employees, visitors, and residents. The potential to negatively impact views is analyzed in
Chapter 4: Aesthetics and has been found to be less than significant.
Design
Goal 5.1 Promote high quality site, architectural and landscape design that increases a
sense of identity in the East of 101 Area.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area is subject to the OPSP’s design guidelines, which are
intended to promote high quality site, architectural, and landscape design goals.
Goal 5.2 Improve streetscape quality of the East of 101 Area through plantings of street
trees and provision of entry monuments.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes sidewalks, bicycle lanes and landscape improvements along
streets as well as plazas and promenades to provide further high-quality connections for
pedestrians.
Goal 5.3 Protect visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including views of
the Bay and San Bruno Mountain.
The 2017 OPSP Update would enhance enjoyment of views of the Bay from the site by bringing in
more employees, visitors, and residents. The potential to negatively impact views is analyzed in
Chapter 4: Aesthetics and has been found to be less than significant.
Goal 5.5 Promote public access to views of the San Francisco Bay and to the Bay Trail.
The 2017 OPSP Update would enhance enjoyment of views of the Bay from the site by bringing in
more employees, visitors, and residents and providing bay-front open space and near-shore
recreation opportunities and enhancing the Bay Trail.
Goal 5.6 Improve the visual quality of the East of 101 Area as seen from Highway 101
along the perimeter of the Area.
The 2017 OPSP Update would provide high-quality development in a location visible from
portions of Highway 101. The potential to negatively impact views is analyzed in Chapter 4:
Aesthetics and has been found to be less than significant.
Noise
Goal 6.1 Encourage the development of land uses which will be compatible with the
noise environment of the East of 101 Area.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Goal 6.2 Provide guidelines for noise attenuation for hotel and office uses in the East of
101 Area.
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 13-15
The 2017 OPSP Update does not propose uses that are substantial generators of noise. The
appropriateness of the proposed uses in the area in relation to noise has been considered in Chapter
14.
Geotechnical Safety
Goal 7.1 Minimize impacts associated will fill soils landfills and slopes.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Goal 7.2 Protect against hazards associated with earthquakes.
Development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would comply with relevant regulations related to
geologic and seismic safety (see Chapter 9).
Conservation
Goal 8.1 Provide for the protection of sensitive wildlife and plant species and their
habitats within the East of 101 Area.
Combined with related policy immediately below for discussion.
Goal 8.2 Minimize indirect impacts to biological resources within the East of 101 Area.
The only sensitive habitats with the potential to be affected by 2017 OPSP Update development
include those in and around the coastal margins, which will be avoided during development (see
Chapter 7).
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines
thresholds:
1. Would the plan or project physically divide an established community?
2. Would the plan or project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project?
3. Would the plan or project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY
Same Conclusion (NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the no impact conclusions as there
are no established communities in the area, which has not changed since the 2011 EIR.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-16 2017 OPSP UPDATE
CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
More Significant Conclusion (NI changed to LTS): The changes proposed with the 2017 OPSP
Update could create conflicts by introducing residential uses to an area where certain existing policies
do not promote residential use. While this SEIR considers the potential for environmental impacts
related to that change, because the proposal is not consistent with existing policies but will revise those
policies as part of proposed approvals, this impact has been revised from NI to LTS.
New Impact Plan-1: Proposed Residential Use Conflicts with Some Policies. The proposed 2017
OPSP Update is not consistent with the current General Plan land use designation or
zoning and such a change in the proposed uses at the site is not consistent with all
General Plan policies, which do not promote housing in the East of 101 area.
However, approval of the 2017 OPSP Update will include rezoning and General Plan
amendments to bring the land use and zoning into consistency. The impact related to
conflicts with plans and policies would therefore be less than significant.
Under CEQA, environmental effects must involve an adverse change in physical conditions, as
opposed to mere inconsistency with existing policies. That a project or plan might be inconsistent with
particular policies in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or other applicable plan, policies or
regulations does not necessarily constitute a significant environmental effect.2 Rather, the threshold of
significance relates not to all potential inconsistencies, but only inconsistencies with current policies
that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.
A detailed discussion of consistency has been included in the setting section above. However, policy
language is often subject to varying interpretations and this environmental analysis is not intended to
pre-suppose the City’s determinations on consistency, or prevent imposition of "conditions of
approval" to correct any determined inconsistencies outside of the CEQA forum.
Approval of the 2017 OPSP Update would involve General Plan and Specific Plan amendments as well
as revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Once approved, the OPSP will be consistent with applicable
policies and regulations and such amendments and revisions would not be considered to result in
environmental impacts beyond those identified as impacts throughout this SEIR. No inconsistencies
with policies intended to mitigate environmental effects have been identified that would result in
significant environmental impacts.
While it is in the domain of the City’s decision-makers to decide ultimate project consistency with
applicable City plans and policies related to OPSP approval, from a CEQA perspective, the OPSP
would not conflict with plans or policies in any way that would have a significant adverse
environmental impact. This is considered a less than significant impact.
CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the less-than-
significant conclusion as the site is not within a conservation plan area, which has not changed since
the 2011 EIR.
2 See Baldwin v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 70 Cal. App 4th 819,8420843
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 14-1
14
NOISE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential significance of noise impacts related to the 2017 OPSP Update.
Because of the desire to assess noise conditions for the residential uses now proposed, Ramboll
Environ prepared a new assessment of noise for this SEIR, as included in full in Appendix H.
NOISE SETTING
While generally unchanged from the 2011 EIR, this section is repeated here to provide an
understanding of terms and concepts used in this discussion.
FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and
below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0
dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in
Table 14.1.
Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a
broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each
frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental
sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that
reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies
than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level so measured is
called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently
measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting
curve. Typical A-weighted levels measured in the environment and in industry are shown in Table 14.2
for different types of noise.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any
instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a
conglomeration of noise from distant sources, which create a relatively steady background noise in
which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental
noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, L10, L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A-
weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A
single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely used. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise
level during a stated period of time.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
TABLE 14.1 DEFINTIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS IN THIS REPORT
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference
pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro
Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure
resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The
sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base
10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound
pressure (e.g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is
directly measured by a sound level meter.
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.
Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound Level,
dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the
A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low
and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the
frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions
to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement
period.
L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the
time during the measurement period.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn
or DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition
of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition
of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10
decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing
level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given
location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude,
duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as
well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 14-3
2885803.1 TABLE 14.2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level (dBA)
Common Indoor Activities
110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet
80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room
Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
FUNDAMENTALS OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) and another is the Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the
maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined
as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes
are used to evaluate human response to vibration. In this section, a PPV descriptor with units of
mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human
complaints. Table 14.3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous
vibration levels produce. The annoyance levels shown in Table 14.3 should be interpreted with care
since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown, depending on the
level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the
threshold of perception can be annoying.
TABLE 14.3 REACTION OF PEOPLE AND DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS FOR CONTINUOUS
VIBRATION LEVELS
Vibration
Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006 to 0.019 Threshold of perception,
Possibility of intrusion Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type
0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected
0.10 Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to
normal buildings
0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal dwellings
such as plastered walls or ceilings.
0.4 to 0.6
Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people subjected
to continuous vibrations
Vibration at this level would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage.
Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences), Technical Advisory,
Vibration TAV-02-01-R9601, California Department of Transportation, February 20, 2002.
Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of
windows, doors or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints,
even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are
more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon
may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors
and windows.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use
of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generate the highest construction related
ground-borne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the peak
particle velocity descriptor (PPV) has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 14-5
vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the
degree of annoyance for humans.
The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and
the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life are evaluated against different vibration limits.
Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to
0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of
physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels such as
people in an urban environment may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or
may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the
potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what
amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced
vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances
where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately
adjacent to the structure.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
While the noise environment has not changed substantially from that assessed in the 2011 EIR, the
existing noise setting has been reassessed to provide updated and detailed information for residential
development. Details of the existing noise environment are summarized below and included in full in
Appendix H.
A noise monitoring survey was conducted between March 13 and March 16, 2017 at several locations
within the Project vicinity to quantify the acoustic environment and provide qualitative descriptions of
the dominant and minor sources of noise at each location. The noise environment at the site results
primarily from local traffic noise generated along arterial streets and U.S. 101, and aircraft over flights
associated with San Francisco International Airport. The nearest runway of the San Francisco
International Airport is located approximately 2.2 miles south of Oyster Point.
CNEL levels in the 2017 OPSP Update area range from highs up to 69 near Oyster Point Boulevard to
lows of 58 to 61 farther from the roadway.
Existing Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Human response to noise varies considerably from one individual to another. Effects of noise at various
levels can include interference with sleep, concentration, and communication; physiological and
psychological stress; and hearing loss. Given these effects, some land uses are considered more
sensitive to ambient noise levels than others. Land uses are considered “noise sensitive” where low
noise levels are necessary for these uses in order to preserve their intended goals such as relaxation,
recreation, education, health, and general state of well-being. Residential uses are considered most
sensitive to noise because people spend extended periods of time and sleep at home. Other noise
sensitive receivers typically include schools, hotels/motels, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
The types and locations of noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity has not substantially changes since
the 2011 EIR and includes live-aboard boats located in the Oyster Cove Marina and Oyster Point
Marina and hotels located along Gateway Blvd, between Oyster Point Blvd to the north and Grand
Blvd to the south.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
A large number of commercial buildings are located in the project vicinity and along major routes to
the facility. Commercial uses include mainly office spaces, biotech and bioscience facilities, and others
and are not considered noise sensitive uses.
REGULATORY SETTING
There have been no substantial changes to the noise regulatory setting of the relevant to the 2017 OPSP
Update area. The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B).
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant noise
impact if it resulted in:
1. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the
General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
2. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project
3. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project
4. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive levels of groundborne vibration or noise
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels.
6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels.
The following quantifiable criteria were used to evaluate the significance of impacts, consistent with
those used for the 2011 OPSP:
Noise and Land Use Compatibility. A significant noise impact would be identified where noise-
sensitive land uses are exposed to exterior noise environments exceeding 65 dBA CNEL and
commercial land uses exceed 70 dBA CNEL. Interior noise levels within residential land uses in excess
of 45 dBA CNEL would also result in a significant noise impact.
Substantial Permanent Increase to Noise Levels. A significant noise impact would be identified where
project-generated traffic would increase traffic noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses by 3
dBA CNEL or more or by 1dBA CNEL over future cumulative levels. A 3 dBA CNEL increase in
noise is used as a threshold because this is the level at which the human ear can perceive an increase in
noise, below that the increase would not be noticeable.
Substantial Temporary Noise and Vibration from Construction. Construction activities generate
temporary noise level increases in the vicinity of project sites. Since noise generated by construction
would be short-term and vary considerably day-to-day, construction noise is evaluated somewhat
differently than operational noise. When construction activities are predicted to cause prolonged
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 14-7
interference with normal activities at noise-sensitive receptors, generate noise levels in excess of 60
dBA Leq (hourly) at noise-sensitive uses or in excess of 70 dBA Leq (hourly) at commercial land uses,
and exceed ambient noise levels by 5 dBA Leq or more, the impact would be considered significant.
Prolonged interference is defined as a substantial noise level increase that occurs for more than one
year. Construction vibration is considered significant if it exposes off-site land uses to vibration levels
in excess of 0.20 in/sec PPV.
APPROPRIATENESS OF NOISE LEVELS FOR PROPOSED USES
More Significant Conclusion (LTS conclusion changed to LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
proposes residential uses, which are considered noise-sensitive uses, in an area where the 2011 OPSP
previously proposed only non-noise sensitive office/R&D uses. Therefore, Impact Noise-1b and
mitigation measures Noise-1a and Noise-1b have been added along with a less-than-significant with
mitigation conclusion for this topic for the 2017 OPSP Update.
The less-than-significant 2011 EIR Impact Noise-1 would remain applicable to the remainder of the
OPSP area (outside the 2017 OPSP Update area), but the following impact and mitigation measures are
instead applicable to the 2017 OPSP Update area:
New Impact Noise-1b: 2017 OPSP Update On-Site Impacts from Operational Equipment. When
added to existing noise levels in the area, operational equipment pursuant to
implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update would generate noise at proposed new
residential and commercial receivers and may exceed the residential noise
compatibility requirements within the Noise Element of the General Plan and
interior noise requirements within Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of
Regulations. This impact is less-than-significant with mitigation.
While the noise environment and projected noise levels have not substantially changed since the 2011
OPSP, the 2017 OPSP Update introduces noise-sensitive residential uses in the 2017 OPSP Update
area instead of the non-noise-sensitive office/R&D development proposed under the 2011 OPSP.
Therefore, this topic has been reassessed as summarized below. The full noise assessment is included
in Appendix H.
Combined with existing noise levels and cumulative increased in traffic noise from the OPSP and other
area development, projected traffic noise levels at the closest residential development along Oyster
Point Blvd within the 2017 OPSP Update area could reach levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL, which would
be within acceptable exterior levels (65 dBA or less) and would result in acceptable interior residential
noise levels (45 dBA) with standard construction techniques. Noise levels elsewhere in the 2017 OPSP
Update area are projected between 58 and 65 dBA CNEL. When added to existing noise levels, traffic
noise would not exceed the compatibility requirements at proposed new residential and commercial
receivers.
Residential and office/R&D air handling equipment including HVAC equipment and parking garage
ventilation fans generate continuous levels of noise in a given environment and must be designed
appropriately to avoid impacting noise-sensitive uses.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
New Mitigation Measure
Noise-1: Acoustical Assessment of 2017 OPSP Update Area Air Handling Equipment.
An acoustical assessment shall be completed for development in the 2017 OPSP
Update area to ensure that heating and cooling (e.g., HVAC) equipment is selected,
designed, and installed such that exterior noise levels comply with the noise limits
established in Chapter 8.32 of the SSFMC (65 dBA CNEL) and interior noise
levels comply with the interior noise compatibility requirements within Title 24,
Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations (45 dBA CNEL). The acoustical
assessment shall include specific recommendations for acoustic enclosures, noise
barriers, or other noise-mitigating measures, if warranted. The same study also
shall evaluate parking garage ventilation fans to ensure that they are designed and
installed to comply with the same noise limits. If warranted, the assessment also
shall specify the required orientation (i.e., acoustic directionality) of ventilation
fans at parking garages, so that they are directed away from new on-site residences
and existing off-site live-aboard boats.
While exterior and interior noise levels in the 2017 OPSP Update area could exceed established
standards, appropriate equipment make and installation (mitigation measure Noise-1) will ensure that
noise levels in outdoor use areas and interior residential spaces will meet relevant standards.
Implementation of these measures will reduce Impact Noise-1b to less than significant levels.
PERMANENT NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Noise-2 or the less-than-significant conclusion as permanent increases in noise levels resulting from
development in the 2017 OPSP Update area would not substantially change from the 2011 OPSP.
Residential uses, like office/R&D use, are not generally sources of high noise levels and the impact to
off-site receivers from on-site operation and traffic noise would be generally the same with the changes
proposed with the 2017 OPSP Update as under the 2011 OPSP.
CUMULATIVE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Noise-3 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the contribution to cumulative increases in noise
levels have not substantially changed since the 2011 OPSP.
Residential uses, like office/R&D use, are not generally sources of high noise levels and the impact to
off-site receivers from on-site equipment and traffic noise under cumulative conditions would be
generally the same with the changes proposed with the 2017 OPSP Update as under the 2011 OPSP.
VIBRATION
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Noise-4 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the generation of groundborne vibration and
groundborne noise levels have not substantially changed since the 2011 OPSP.
Residential uses, like office/R&D use, are not generally substantial sources of operational groundborne
vibration or noise and construction activities at the site would have generally the same potential for
such impacts under the 2017 OPSP Update as the original 2011 OPSP.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 14-9
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains SU): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change Impact Noise-5 or the significant and unavoidable conclusion related to construction noise as
the 2017 OPSP Update would not result in substantially changed construction noise from that analyzed
for the 2011 OPSP. However, mitigation measure Noise-5 has been revised to update the measure for
current methodologies and to address construction near the currently-proposed on-site residential
uses.
Impact Noise-5: Construction Noise. The OPSP area includes existing sensitive receptors
consisting of live-aboard residents in the marinas. In periods of construction,
during construction hours, noise generated by construction on the site would
substantially increase noise levels at residential land uses in the vicinity of the site
temporarily above levels existing without the project. This is a significant impact.
As under the 2011 OPSP, noise from construction activities will exceed 60 dBA Leq and exceed the
ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq for a period of more than one construction season
(one year), and therefore, the impact would be considered significant.
Per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code section 8.32.050(d), noise-generating activities at
active construction sites will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code also requires that no individual piece of equipment
shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet and the noise level at any point
outside the property shall not exceed 90 dB.
Revised Mitigation Measure
Noise-5: Construction Noise. To reduce noise levels generated by construction, the
following standard construction noise control measures shall be included in all
construction projects within the OPSP area.
• Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment,
and if necessary, intake and exhaust silencers.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should shall be strictly
prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or
portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct
temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when
located near adjoining sensitive receptors. Temporary noise barriers could
reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA.
• Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
• Route all construction traffic to and from the OPSP area via designated truck
routes where possible. Prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in
residential areas where feasible.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not
audible at existing residences bordering the OPSP area.
• The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed
construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities, disturbance coordinator contact information, and noise
complaint response procedures.
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to
correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the
notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
• For pile driving activities, where feasible, consider a) pre-drilling foundation pile
holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile, b) and use
using multiple pile driving rigs to expedite this phase of construction, and/or c)
the use of “acoustical blankets” for receivers located within 100 feet of the site.
• For mobile equipment that routinely operate near residences (i.e., within
approximately 200 feet), consider replacement of typical fixed, pure-tone backup
alarms with ambient-sensing and/or broadband backup alarms.
Although the above measures would reduce noise generated by the construction, the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended period of time that adjacent receivers
would be exposed to construction noise, though the noise would be episodic and temporary in nature.
AIRCRAFT NOISE
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change Impact
Noise-6 or the less-than-significant conclusion as the site is outside the area significantly impacted by
aircraft noise, which has not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
The airport land use plan for San Francisco International Airport has been updated since the 2011 EIR,
but the OPSP area remains well outside the airport’s noise-affected 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. 1 The
exterior noise environment at the OPSP area resulting from aircraft would be considered compatible
with proposed uses.
1 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November 2012, Exhibit IV-5
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 15-1
15
POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND
RECREATION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the Draft SEIR contains discussion regarding three CEQA topic areas related to the
increase in employees and residents at the site: Population/Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. It
describes the change in employees and residents in the OPSP area and analyzes the potential for
impacts on population and housing, public services, and recreation resulting from implementation of
the proposed 2017 OPSP Update, including the change in use from office/R&D to residential in a
portion of the 2017 OPSP Update area.
Michael Baker International performed a Municipal Services Assessment for the City to assess the
current existing conditions and need for public services, utilities and recreational opportunities. This
chapter is based on that report, dated August 2017, the full text of which is included in Appendix I.
POPULATION/HOUSING
SETTING
Since the 2011 EIR, the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan was updated. The information in
this setting section is updated from the City’s 2015 Housing Element.
The 2015 Housing Element continued to focus on promotion of medium- and high-density housing
developments on infill sites particularly along transit corridors and in the downtown area. The
possibility of housing in the OPSP area was not discussed in the 2015 (or any earlier) Housing
Element.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) documents the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for the Bay Area. The RHNA process is a state mandate, devised to address the
need for and planning of housing across a range of affordability and in all communities throughout the
state. Each jurisdiction within the Bay Area is given a share of the anticipated regional housing need.
Local governments are then required to plan where and how the allocated housing units will be
developed within their communities. This is done through the Housing Element of each local
government’s General Plan. The countywide RHNA process determined a need for 1,864 housing units
in South San Francisco between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2022 (the latest timeframe projected).
According to the General Plan Housing Element, the City has a history of imbalance in its jobs/housing
ratio. South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” city with substantial in-commuting from other jurisdictions.
In 2010, there were approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 44,000 jobs, a
ratio of 1.4 jobs per every working resident of the City. By comparison, in 2010 San Mateo County had
a much closer balance between the number of employed residents and total jobs with approximately
342,000 employed residents and 345,000 jobs, a ratio of approximately 1.0 jobs per every working
resident of the County. The City’s jobs-housing balance is a measure for land use planning purposes.
The City does not currently have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal, but the Housing Element notes,
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
“Since 2005, job growth in South San Francisco has been faster than that of the county, increasing at an
average annual rate of 2.8 percent, adding substantially to a need to provide additional housing
opportunities to support a fast-growing economy.”
South San Francisco is projected to continue to contain more jobs than households over this 30-year
period. South San Francisco’s jobs-housing imbalance is expected to increase to 1.9 jobs per household
in 2040 compared to a ratio around 1.4 projected for both the county and the region in 2040. This
represents an increase in jobs in South San Francisco from 43,550 to 53,790 (23.5%) between 2010 and
2040, and from 345,190 to 445,070 (28.9%) county-wide, and 3,385,300 to 4,505,230 (33.1%) in the
Bay Area.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects South San Francisco’s population to
increase from 63,632 to 87,700 between 2010 and 2040, a 38 percent increase over 30 years.
Household growth is expected to be slightly lower, rising from 20,938 households to 27,900, a gain of
33 percent. These projections reflect the growing need for residential development in South San
Francisco.
POPULATION/HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS
Standards of Significance
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the OPSP
site as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1. The inducement of substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure); or
2. The displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
3. The displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
Displacement of Housing or People
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains NI): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the following
significance conclusion as there have been no changes in existing residents in the area since the 2011
OPSP.
The only current residences in the OPSP area are live -aboard boats in the marinas, which are not
proposed to be affected by the OPSP. Thus, no residents would be displaced, and construction of
replacement housing elsewhere would not be necessitated. Therefore, there would be no impact and no
mitigation measures are required.
Inducing Population Growth
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS): In addition to the indirect
population growth induced by increased employment under the 2011 OPSP, the 2017 OPSP Update
would result in direct addition of residents to the OPSP area. While the impact statement has been
updated to reflect this change, the combined indirect and direct population growth would not change
the significance conclusion.
Revised Impact Pop-1: Direct and Indirect Population Growth. As a large employment center and
residential development, build-out of both Phase I Project and the entire OPSP
would both directly and indirectly induce population growth through creation of
CHAPTER 15: POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 15-3
housing and additional jobs. However, these additional jobs the inclusion of
housing would help in part to correct job deficiencies local and region-wide jobs-
housing imbalances and the impact would be considered less-than-significant.
The Municipal Services Assessment prepared for the 2017 OPSP Update (Appendix I) assumed up to 1
employee for each 376 square feet of non-residential space proposed plus 1.78 residents per household.
This would result in a non-residential population of 4,330 employees and a residential population of
2,120 residents for a total Project population of 6,450 employees and residents. As a comparison,
calculated this way, the 2011 OPSP would have resulted in 5,984 employees.
A jobs-housing ratio is a numeric representation of the relationship between the total number of jobs
and the total number of residential units in an area. This ratio indicates the ability of a region to provide
both adequate employment and housing opportunities for its existing and projected population. A jobs-
housing ratio of 1.0 represents a balance of jobs and housing. An overall jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 is
balanced (so that there is little in- or out-commuting). A balance of jobs and housing can benefit the
regional environment by reducing commute times and distances between residential areas and
employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip length, which creates
environmental effects, such as those associated with transportation, air quality, and noise.
As discussed in the setting above, South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 1.4
and a projected ratio of 1.9; this means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees
from surrounding communities, or alternatively, that exports housing.
While the proposed development in the OPSP area under the 2017 OPSP Update continues to propose
more jobs than housing, the inclusion of housing with the update reduces the imbalance and the
conclusion of less-than-significant remains valid. Direct population growth through provision of
housing units would help to balance the existing and growing jobs-housing imbalance.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
SETTING
Michael Baker International performed a Municipal Services Assessment for the City to assess the
current existing conditions and need for public services, utilities and recreational opportunities. This
setting is based on that report, dated August 2017, the full text of which is included in Appendix I.
Police Service
The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) provides police service to the entire city,
including the OPSP area. As of 2016, the SSFPD had a total of 83 sworn officers and 35 civilian
employees with ratio of 1.03 officers per 1,000 service population. Implementing Policy 8.1.I-2 of the
General Plan Health and Safety Element seeks to maintain a target ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000
residents to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies.
The SSFPD operates generally out of one main station (as opposed to having substations), which is
currently located at 33 Arroyo Drive. A new police headquarters that will replace the current main
station is proposed as part of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, which is currently
undergoing its own SEIR, with construction planned for 2019.
In 2016, the SSFPD response times to emergency calls averaged 3:59 minutes and to nonemergency
calls averaged 6:03 minutes. These response times are considered acceptable, though there are no
adopted standards.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Fire Service
Fire protection and emergency services within the OPSP area is the responsibility of the South San
Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). There are currently five fire stations located throughout South
San Francisco. A new fire station that would replace the existing Station #63 is planned for the
Community Civic Campus project. Station #62 is the closest station to the OPSP site, approximately
1.5 miles away at 249 Harbor Way.
The SSFFD staffing consists of emergency response, fire prevention, and administrative personnel, for
a total of 87 full-time equivalent and 5.68 hourly and contract employees. There are a minimum of 20
on-duty emergency response personnel staffing each of the three shifts. The General Plan Health and
Safety Element does not identify a personnel-to-service population target ratio.
Response time is defined as the time that elapses between the moment a call is received by dispatch and
the moment when the first unit assigned to the call arrives at the scene. The goal is to arrive at
emergency incidents within seven minutes after a 9-1-1 call is received, which includes a four-minute
travel time with 7-minute total response time. Despite meeting goals for average response times
system-wide, the SSFFD has noted that it is looking for alternative sites for Station #62 in the East of
101 area because it has difficulty meeting its response goals in the northern and eastern parts of the city
in the East of 101 area where the OPSP is located.
Response times, staffing, and equipment contribute to the Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating.
Insurance costs for property owners are based, in part, on an ISO rating. The ISO scale ranges from 1 to
10, with 1 representing the best service. The SSFFD rating is 3, which is a rating indicating good
service.
Schools
The South San Francisco Unified School District administers all public schools in City of South San
Francisco as well as three elementary schools in San Bruno/Daly City. The South San Francisco
Unified School District operates a total of nine elementary schools for kindergarten through 5th grade,
three middle schools for grades 6 through 8, and three high schools for grades 9 through 12 as well as
an adult and alternative education program. The closest schools to the OPSP site are Martin Elementary
School approximately two miles away at 35 School Street, Parkway Heights Middle School
approximately three miles away at 650 Sunset Avenue, and South San Francisco High School
approximately 3.5 miles away at 400 B Street.
The total SSFUSD capacity is 12,600 students. No schools are over capacity, and the current utilization
is 70.3 percent. There has been a steady but slight decrease in enrollment districtwide since approval of
the 2011 OPSP in 2011. Slightly higher utilization is projected for 2022–23, at 71.5 percent.
Libraries
The South San Francisco Library System is an independent city library system and also a member of
the Peninsula Library System, a consortium of city, county, and community college libraries in San
Mateo County providing access to the collections of all member libraries. The South San Francisco
Library System has two libraries, the Main Library at 840 West Orange Avenue, and the recently
renovated Grand Avenue Branch Library at 306 Walnut Avenue, and two literacy programs that serve
the needs of South San Francisco and San Mateo County residents. A new library that would replace
the Main Library is planned for development in the Community Civic Campus project. Once
completed, library space will amount to approximately 57,000 square feet, or approximately 0.88
square feet per capita based on 2016 population and 0.76 square feet per capita based on the City’s
population projection for 2040. Library visits have doubled in the past six years, from 234,854 in
2009–10 to more than a half million in 2014–2015. A goal of the library’s 2016–2020 strategic plan is
CHAPTER 15: POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 15-5
completion of the planned new library in the Community Civic Campus to meet increased demands for
library programs and community engagement.
Recreation
The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages parks and recreation
centers within the city boundaries. According to the Municipal Services Assessment, there is an
estimated 251.2 acres of parks and open space in the city. Community parks, neighborhood parks,
mini-parks, specialty parks, and linear parks collectively provide approximately 1.9 acres of developed
parkland per 1,000 residents. Combined with open space and common green areas, there are
approximately 3.9 acres of parks and open space per 1,000 residents, which is greater than the General
Plan standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. When school sites that currently have joint use facilities
are included, the total developed and open space combined acreage ratio increases to 5.4 acres per
1,000 residents.
The two existing parks closest to the OPSP area are Wind Harp and Jack Drago Park (mini-parks)
located over a mile from the planning area. The Oyster Point Marina Park is an open space/special use
facility, with walking trails, benches, picnic areas, and marina-related services within the OPSP area.
All other facilities are west of US Highway 101.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Standards of Significance
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the OPSP
site as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1. Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• fire services
• police services
• schools
• parks
• other public facilities
2. Increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
3. Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
recreation facilities, or the need for new or physically altered recreation facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios.
Overall Services and Recreation
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS): In addition to increased
employment under the 2011 OPSP, the 2017 OPSP Update would result in addition of residents to the
OPSP area and related increased demand for public services and recreational opportunities. While the
2011 EIR identified less than significant impacts in these topics, a formal impact statement had not
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
been included. Therefore, the impact statement has been added as a revision and the changes in the
2017 OPSP Update would not change the significance conclusions.
Revised Impact Pop-2: Increased Public Service and Recreational Demand. The Project would
increase the number of residents and employees at the site, which would increase
the demand for public services and recreational demand. However, the Project
could be adequately served with existing facilities or new facilities to be
constructed per City-wide planning and the impact related to public services and
recreation would be considered less than significant.
Specific discussion of various services and recreation is provided below.
Police Services
The Municipal Service Assessment (Appendix I) determined that with the 2017 OPSP Update, build-
out of the OPSP would result in an increased incident volume of approximately 0.69 incidents per day.
For comparison, calculated the same way, the 2011 OPSP would have resulted in an increased incident
volume of 0.16 incidents per day. As noted in the setting, the SSFPD operates generally out of one
main station, which will be relocated and expanded as part of the City’s Community Civic Campus
project. The developer will pay the Public Safety Impact fee which is designed to offset impacts from
new development on public safety capital costs.
Therefore, the OPSP would have a less than significant environmental impact related to police
services.
Fire Services
The Municipal Service Assessment (Appendix I) determined that with the 2017 OPSP Update, build-
out of the OPSP would result in an increased incident volume of approximately 0.6 incidents per day.
For comparison, calculated the same way, the 2011 OPSP would have resulted in an increased incident
volume of 0.25 incidents per day.
Under CEQA, an impact on public services in itself is not a physical environmental impact required to
be evaluated under CEQA; instead, the question is whether the response to that services impact, such as
the construction of new facilities, will have significant environmental impacts.1 Fire Station # 62 serves
the Oyster Point area from 249 Harbor Boulevard, and is approximately 7,600 square feet, with three
apparatus bays and the area to accommodate an on-duty crew of four personnel. The Municipal
Services Assessment determined that the OPSP-generated volume increase of 0.6 incidents per day, or
219 incidents annually, would not require an increase in on-duty capacity.
Fire Station #62 was constructed in 1962 at a location best suited to protect the area at that time. The
Municipal Services Assessment states that areas at the eastern end of the East of 101 Area, including
the OPSP area, are just outside of the existing Fire Station # 62’s four-minute travel time capability
(which extends to approximately the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard).
The addition of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update’s residential units combined with the employment-
generating uses will necessitate the relocation and replacement of Fire Station #62 in order to
effectively serve the OPSP area. A relocated Fire Station # 62 will provide the SSFFD the ability to
modify existing deployment to support response time performance that may be impacted by traffic
congestion or incident complexity. The relocated Fire Station # 62 does not need to increase in size
over the existing 7,600 square feet, but the relocated station will need to be configured to accommodate
1 This interpretation of CEQA was reaffirmed specifically as it relates to fire stations in the recent case: City of
Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (1st Dist., Div. 3 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833.
CHAPTER 15: POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 15-7
three apparatus bays and the ability to support an on-duty crew of seven personnel to meet modern
operational and housing needs. Such a configuration would provide the opportunity to reconfigure
existing fire company or ambulance deployment, which may include relocated or new personnel. While
the specific location for a relocated Station #62 has not been proposed, it would be within the East of
101 area, which is a developed urban area. Such a facility would affect only a small area (an acre or
less) in an urban location, and as such an infill project, would be unlikely to cause significant
environmental effects. That being said, once the details are known, such a relocation project would be
subject to review under CEQA to identify, reduce, and mitigate any potential significant environmental
effects that are identified.
The design of development and building in the OPSP area would be required to comply with the City’s
Fire Code (Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code) and the City Fire Marshall’s code requirements
regarding on site access for emergency vehicles as is a standard condition for any project approval. The
developer will pay the Public Safety Impact fee which is designed to offset impacts from new
development on public safety capital costs, including Station 62.
Therefore, the OPSP would have a less than significant impact related to fire protection services.
Schools
The Municipal Service Assessment determined that with the 2017 OPSP Update, build-out of the OPSP
would result in generation of 195 elementary school students, 93 middle school students, and 147 high
school students.
The projected enrollment/capacity of the closest schools through 2022–2023 including the OPSP with
the 2017 OPSP Update are 631/555 for Martin Elementary School, 723/1,199 for Parkway Heights
Middle School, and 1,526/1,764 for South San Francisco High School.
Under the currently projected conditions, there would be capacity at Parkway Heights Middle School
and South San Francisco High School to accommodate OPSP students; however, there would be
insufficient capacity at Martin Elementary School. However, the SSFUSD does not place caps on
enrollment at any of its schools. The SSFUSD reviews open enrollment/intra-district transfer requests
and strives to balance enrollments across school sites and grade levels and/or brings modular units onto
school property to increase capacity if needed. Given the projected system-wide capacity of 71.5
percent and SSFUSD policies to accommodate enrollment, construction of new facilities is not
anticipated to be necessary to accommodate OPSP students.
Therefore, the environmental impact related to school services would be less than significant.
Under the provisions of Senate Bill 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated
with accommodating student enrollment as a result of development. Fee proceeds may be used for
construction or renovation of schools. Project sponsors of future development in the SSFUSD must pay
all applicable development impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance to the SSFUSD
to cover additional school services required by the new development. The current fees are $3.36 per
residential square foot and $0.54 per commercial square foot.
Libraries
The residential population in the proposed 2017 OPSP Update would use library services. The
American Library Association no longer recommends standards for physical space planning, but
recently constructed libraries in mid-sized cities of the San Francisco Peninsula have ranged from 0.5
to 1.0 square feet per capita. Currently in South San Francisco, the library space per capita is
approximately 0.54 square feet. With the planned new library/recreation center in the Community Civic
Campus, this would result in approximately 0.88 square feet per capita and a total of approximately
57,000 square feet of library space. Some library planning studies have also considered how far a
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
library should be from the population served, both in terms of distance and the number of minutes of
travel time, and a 3- to 5-mile radius is a commonly reported value. However, as with space needs, the
American Library Association does not have any standards or guidelines.
The Municipal Service Assessment determined that with the 2017 OPSP Update, build-out of the OPSP
would result in demand for approximately 1,272 square feet of library space that could be met with
current and planned library space. Therefore, the environmental impact related to library services
would be less than significant.
Recreation
The Municipal Service Assessment determined that with the 2017 OPSP Update, build-out of the OPSP
would result in demand for a total of 8.6 acres of park and recreational facilities, including 6.4 acres for
the residents and 2.2 acres for the employees. For comparison, this would have been 2.98 acres total
under the 2011 OPSP. The OPSP includes an approximately 3-acre flexible-use Oyster Point Marina
Park and a 3.1-acre Crescent Park and Beach along the shore in addition to improvements to the Bay
Trail. The Project sponsor is also proposing to dedicate 4.32 acres of BCDC jurisdictional area in the
2017 OPSP Update area as public open space. This total provided acreage of 10.42 acres in the OPSP
area will meet projected generated demand at build-out.
A number of planned and potential locations for future parks are described in the City’s Parks &
Recreation Master Plan, which could provide an additional 49 acres of parks and 40 acres of open
space (including expansion of Oyster Point Marina Park in the OPSP area). The City’s ordinance as
authorized by the Quimby Act requires parkland dedication in proposed residential subdivisions or the
payment of an in-lieu fee. This fee requirement is a condition of approval of residential development
projects. The fees may only be used for acquiring land and developing new park and recreation
facilities or for rehabilitating and/or enhancing existing neighborhood parks, community parks, and
recreational facilities.
As noted in the Municipal Service Assessment, under Goal 2 of the City’s Parks & Recreation Master
Plan, the City strives to provide park, trail, or open space within a 5-minute walk (generally 0.25 mile)
for every city resident and to have neighborhood parks within 0.75 mile of a neighborhood. The Bay
Trail encircles the site with easy access to proposed residents and connects to the existing Oyster Point
Marina Park open space/special use facility. Both the proposed Crescent Park and Beach and improved
Oyster Point Marina Park would be within 0.75 miles of the proposed residences.
Therefore, through on-site provision of recreational opportunities and in-lieu fees to support off-site
recreational opportunities per city-wide park planning, the OPSP would not result in additional
significant environmental impacts related to construction of new parks or deterioration of existing
parks and the environmental impact related to parks and recreation would be less than significant.
Other
No significant impacts to other public services or recreation are anticipated.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-1
16
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing roads and
traffic operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions.
Crane Transportation Group, who prepared the traffic analysis for the 2011 EIR, updated their report
for the 2017 OPSP Update. This chapter was prepared in coordination with Crane Transportation
Group, with supporting figures and materials included in Appendix J. Traffic counts conducted in May
2016 as well as 2040 traffic projections from the recently updated East of 101 and Downtown Specific
Plan traffic model have been used as the foundation for the circulation analysis in this chapter.
SETTING
There have not been substantial changes to the roadway system in the area since the 2011 EIR was
prepared and certified. However, there has been development in the vicinity in that time and changes in
both the existing and projected traffic levels in the area. The setting section has been presented here in
entirety.
ROADWAYS
The OPSP site is located at the east end of Oyster Point Boulevard and along Marina Boulevard – see
Figure 1 in Appendix J. At the Oyster Point Boulevard / Marina Boulevard T-intersection, Oyster Point
continues north to existing development, and Marina Boulevard goes south/east toward the Ferry
Terminal, Oyster Point Park and the Oyster Point Marina. OPSP access to the U.S. 101 freeway is
provided by a variety of major streets with several route options available to the three interchanges that
could potentially be used by OPSP traffic. Each is briefly described below, while a schematic
presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control are presented in Figure 16.1.
Freeways
U.S.101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the OPSP area. It extends from downtown San
Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. In the vicinity of the OPSP
site, U.S.101 has northbound on-ramps at South Airport Boulevard (at Wondercolor Lane between
Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), at Grand Avenue and at Oyster Point Boulevard; northbound off-
ramps are provided at South Airport Boulevard (at Wondercolor Lane between Mitchell Avenue and
Utah Avenue), at East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster
Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point
Boulevard), Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue;
southbound off-ramps are provided at Airport Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard), Oyster
Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard and at Produce Avenue. There are auxiliary lanes on northbound
U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Point Boulevard. In 2016 U.S.101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of about
220,000 vehicles in the South San Francisco area.1
Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the “East of 101 area” in
South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.101 freeway, four lanes
east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes east of Gull Road and internal to the OPSP site.
East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office
areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to
four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection.
Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of East Grand
Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S.101 freeway ramps
via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue.
Forbes Boulevard is a two- to four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech
area with East Grand Avenue. There are two travel lanes east of Gull Road and four travel lanes
between Gull Road and East Grand Avenue.
Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side of the
U.S.101 freeway. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City of San
Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard
changes names to Produce Avenue. In the General Plan, Airport Boulevard is classified as a major
arterial.
Marina Boulevard is a two-lane collector street extending easterly from Oyster Point Boulevard and
ending at the east end of Oyster Point Park and Oyster Point Marina. It primarily serves as access to
parking areas for the Marina and the Park.
Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major north-south arterial street connecting East Grand Avenue with
South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Littlefield Avenue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand Avenue with
Utah Avenue.
Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport
Boulevard.
South Airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway traveling from the Airport Boulevard / San
Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue intersection on the north near U.S.101 to the San Bruno Avenue East
/ North McDonnell Road intersection on the south. Most of South Airport Boulevard runs parallel to
and east of U.S.101.
Dubuque Avenue is a two- to four-lane north-south roadway running east of and almost parallel to
U.S.101 between East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Mitchell Avenue is a two-lane roadway running in an east/west direction connecting the South Airport
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard intersection on the west to Harbor Way on the east.
1 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, Caltrans.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-3
Figure 16.1: Study Intersections and Intersection Control
Source: Crane Transportation
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-5
Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was conducted at the following 24 major intersections which
would be most likely to be impacted by OPSP traffic.
1. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps (Signal)
2. Airport Boulevard / Tower Place (Signal)*
3. Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard (Signal)
4. Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal)
5. Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp and Southbound On-Ramp (Signal)
6. Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
(Signal)
7. Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard / Gateway Driveway (Signal)
8. Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue (Signal)
9. Oyster Point Boulevard / 345/347 Oyster Point Offices*
10. Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
11. Forbes Boulevard / Eccles Avenue (Signal)*
12. Forbes Boulevard / Allerton Avenue (All Way Stop)
13. Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
14. Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal)
15. Grand Avenue Overcrossing / Dubuque Avenue (Signal)
16. E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing (Signal)
17. E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal)
18. E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (Signal)
19. E. Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (Signal)
20. E. Grand Avenue / Allerton Avenue (Allerton Stop Sign Controlled)
21. Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal)
22. Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue (Signal)
23. S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal)
24. S. Airport Boulevard / Utah Avenue (Signal)
*intersections added to analysis since 2011 Traffic Analysis.
Existing counts were conducted at all locations in May 2016 under direction of Crane Transportation
Group. Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix J present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis
intersections.
OPSP TRIP CHARACTERISTICS
Trip Generation
Trip generation is shown in Table 16.1. This table includes trips generated by existing uses in the
OPSP area, the net change in trips from existing under the 2011 OPSP, the net change in trips from
existing under the 2017 OPSP Update, and the difference from the 2011 OPSP and the 2017 OPSP.
This table includes trips for the 2017 OPSP Update area as well as the remainder of the OPSP area and
the total trips in the entire OPSP area.
CEQA specifies that existing uses at a site are typically the baseline against which to compare changes
due to the project, as presented above and in Table 16.1. However, because the 2017 OPSP Update
represents a change in the plan for development of the area, Table 16.1 also presents a comparison of
the OPSP trip generation including the 2017 OPSP Update versus the previous 2011 OPSP without the
current update. While not used for CEQA analysis, this table provides a comparison of how trips would
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
be different between the previously proposed 2011 OPSP and the current 2017 OPSP Update in the
context of the current traffic model (which has been updated since the 2011 EIR).
As shown in Table 16.1, with the 2017 OPSP Update, the entire OPSP would generate net new trips of
about 9,566 daily, 265 inbound and 315 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 262 inbound and
333 outbound trips during the PM peak hour compared to existing trips at the site. This can be
compared to the 2011 OPSP, which would have generated about 9,566 daily, 476 inbound and 100
outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 91 inbound and 473 outbound trips during the PM peak
hour compared to existing trips at the site. As shown in the “2011 OPSP to 2017 OPSP Update
Difference” columns of the table, total daily traffic would be the same between 2011 OPSP and the
2017 OPSP Update. Comparing two-way peak hour traffic flows, during the AM peak hour the 2017
OPSP Update would result in no difference in trip generation, while during the PM peak hour the 2017
OPSP Update would result in 25 more trips compared to the 2011 OPSP. Comparing directionality of
peak hour trips, the 2017 OPSP Update would result in a reduction in AM inbound trips by 215 trips
and a reduction in PM outbound trips by 141.
Despite not substantially changing overall daily or two-way traffic, there would be a substantial change
in the directionality of the trips between the 2011 OPSP and the 2017 OPSP Update. Job-generating
uses have mostly inbound traffic in the morning as employees arrive to work and outbound traffic in
the afternoon/evening as employees leave for the day whereas residential uses generally have trips in
the reverse directions with mostly outbound traffic in the morning as residents head off to work and
inbound traffic in the afternoon/evening as residents return home. The 2011 OPSP did not contain
residential uses, so trips were mostly heading the same directions in the peak hours, which is the same
direction other trips in the predominantly employment-based development in the East of 101 area are
heading. Because of the mix of residential and job-generating uses, the 2017 OPSP Update would have
more balanced inbound/outbound flows during both the AM and PM peak hours than the 2011 OPSP
and there would therefore be some difference in the potential impacts to the roadway system due to this
change in the directionality of trips despite very similar overall traffic levels.
Trip Distribution
OPSP traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based upon the updated East of 101 and
Downtown Specific Plan traffic model (see Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix J). It is likely that OPSP
employment and residential drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would
choose to access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. Existing With OPSP AM and PM
peak hour intersection turn volumes are shown in Figures 12 and 13 in Appendix J, respectively, while
Existing With OPSP AM and PM peak hour freeway volumes are shown in Figure 14 in Appendix J.
Likewise, year 2040 With OPSP AM and PM peak hour intersection turn volumes are shown in Figures
15 and 16 in Appendix J, respectively, while 2040 With OPSP AM and PM peak hour freeway
volumes are shown in Figure 17 in Appendix J.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
20
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
PAGE 16-7
Ta
b
l
e
1
6
.
1
:
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
TRI
P
S
2
0
1
1
OP
S
P
NET
TRI
P
S
*
2
0
1
7
OP
S
P
UPD
A
T
E
NET
TRIPS* 2011 OPSP TO 2017 OPSP UPDATE DIFFERENCE
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
a
i
l
y
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
a
i
l
y
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
a
i
l
y
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Ph
a
s
e
U
n
i
t
In
O
u
t
I
n
O
u
t
2
-
W
a
y
Si
z
e
In
O
u
t
I
n
O
u
t
2
-
W
a
y
Si
z
e
In
O
u
t
I
n
O
u
t
2
-
W
a
y
I
n
O
u
t
I
n
O
u
t
2
-
W
a
y
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
A
r
e
a
II
I
a
n
d
I
V
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
n
i
t
12
2
3
0
2
6
1
2
1
1
,
4
9
0
0
22
1
4
7
5
5
2
4
3
4,
4
0
0
1,
1
9
1
-5
8
2
5
4
2
4
0
1
6
3
,
3
9
1
-
2
7
9
2
0
7
1
8
5
-
2
2
7
-
1
,
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
S
F
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
S
F
1
,
1
9
2
,
0
0
0
0
II
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
S
F
40
1
0
9
4
0
4
9
0
60
0
,
0
0
0
13
2
2
9
3
2
1
4
3
2
,
4
6
9
1,
0
4
2
,
0
0
0
20
0
3
7
1
8
2
3
0
3
,
5
3
5
6
8
8
-
1
4
8
7
1
,
0
6
5
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
S
F
0
2
8
,
0
0
0
0
20
1
7
O
P
S
P
U
p
d
a
t
e
A
r
e
a
T
o
t
a
l
16
9
4
0
3
5
1
6
1
1
,
9
8
0
3
5
3
7
6
8
7
3
8
6
6
,
8
6
9
1
4
2
2
9
1
2
5
8
2
4
6
6
,
9
2
6
-
2
1
1
2
1
5
1
7
1
-
1
4
0
5
6
Re
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
I
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
S
F
7
0
5
6
1
0
0
7
6
1
,
2
3
5
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
7
2
-
2
4
-
7
8
3
3
1
,
2
0
5
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
7
0
-
2
5
-
7
8
3
2
1
,
1
6
3
-
2
-
1
0
-
1
-
4
2
Ho
t
e
l
R
o
o
m
s
8
3
5
8
1
0
8
3
5
0
5
5
4
8
8
7
5
5
1
,
4
9
1
3
5
0
5
3
4
9
8
2
5
5
1
,
4
7
7
-
2
1
-
5
0
-
1
4
Re
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
T
o
t
a
l
78
5
9
1
0
5
8
4
1
,
3
4
3
1
2
7
2
4
9
8
8
2
,
6
9
6
1
2
3
2
4
4
8
7
2
,
6
4
0
-
4
0
-
5
-
1
-
5
6
To
t
a
l
O
P
S
P
En
t
i
r
e
O
P
S
P
T
o
t
a
l
24
0
9
9
1
4
0
2
4
5
3
,
3
2
4
4
7
6
1
0
0
9
1
4
7
3
9
,
5
6
6
2
6
5
3
1
5
2
6
2
3
3
3
9
,
5
6
6
-
2
1
5
2
1
5
1
6
6
-
1
4
1
0
*
N
e
t
t
r
i
p
s
a
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
t
r
i
p
s
m
i
n
u
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
r
i
p
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
W
&
S
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
DRA
F
T
SUB
S
E
Q
U
E
N
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
16
-
8
2017 OPSP UPDATE
Th
i
s
p
a
g
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
l
e
f
t
b
l
a
n
k
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-9
INTERSECTION OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. For signalized intersections, the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, National Research Council) methodology was utilized. With this
methodology, operations are defined by the level of service and average control delay per vehicle
(measured in seconds) for the entire intersection. For a signalized intersection, control delay is the
portion of the total delay attributed to traffic signal operation. This includes delay associated with
deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 16.2 summarizes the
relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections.
Unsignalized Intersections. For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled)
intersections, the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council) methodology for unsignalized intersections was utilized. For side-street stop-controlled
intersections, operations are defined by the level of service and average control delay per vehicle
(measured in seconds), with delay reported for the stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements,
although overall delay is also typically reported for intersections along state highways. For all-way
stop-controlled intersections, operations are defined by the average control delay for the entire
intersection (measured in seconds per vehicle). The delay at an unsignalized intersection incorporates
delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 16.3
summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections.
Table 16.2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression
and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short
cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C)
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to
oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Table 16.3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Little or no delays ≤ 10.0
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for
an all-way stop), or with approach/turn movement capacity
exceeded (for a side street stop controlled intersection)
> 50.0
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
Analysis Software
All existing and future operating conditions have been evaluated using the Synchro software program.
Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable
operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation
for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements.
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Table 16.4 shows that under existing conditions (based on the latest traffic counts conducted in May
2016), all 24 analyzed intersections were operating at acceptable Levels of Service during the AM peak
traffic hour, while 23 of the 24 analyzed intersections are also operating acceptably during the PM peak
traffic hour. The exception is: Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue, which is
operating at an unacceptable LOS E during the evening commute peak hour.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-11
Table 16.4 – Intersection Level of Service – Existing With and Without OPSP Traffic
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Without
OPSP
With
OPSP
Without
OPSP
With
OPSP
Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) C-24.5 (1) C-24.8 C-29.9 C-29.9
Airport Blvd./Tower Pl (Signal) A-7.5 (1) A-7.6 A-5.9 A-6.3
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. (Signal) C-33.5 (1) C-33.5 D-43.1 D-44.0
Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB On-Ramp (Signal) C-27.0 (1) C-34,7 C-22.8 C-25.2
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp and SB On-Ramp
(Signal)
B-10.9 (1) B-11.7 A-7.9 A-8.1
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway/U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp Flyover
(Signal)
C-31.4 (1) D-37.9 C-21.0 C-22.5
Oyster Point Blvd/Veterans Blvd (Signal) B-13.7 (1) B-14.5 B-12.4 B-12.6
Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-18.7 (1) C-27.4 A-9.6 B-11.4
Oyster Point/345-347 Oyster Point Offices (Signal) A-2.4 (1) A-3.3 B-12.9 B-12.9
Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) B-12.7 (1) B-18.2 D-40.7 D-40.4
Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-15.1 (1) B-17.4 B-13.3 B-13.4
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. (All Way Stop Control) B-14.9 (2) C-15.8 C-16.3 C-20.1
Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) B-14.5 (1) B-15.8 B-10.5 B-12.4
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-38.2 (1) D-38.3 D-41.0 D-41.2
Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-5.0 (1) A-5.4 A-5.0 A-6.2
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) A-6.3 (1) A-6.3 A-7.3 A-8.0
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) C-22.7 (1) C-27.0 B-20.0 C-20.3
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal) C-30.5 (1) C-33.1 D-37.0 D-46.4
E. Grand Ave./Littlefield Ave. (Signal) D-43.4 (1) D-54.1 B-14.6 B-14.9
E. Grand Ave/Allerton Ave. (Allerton Stop Sign Control) B-10.1 (3) B-10.4 D-28.6 D-29.6
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. (Signal) D-36.3 (1) D-36.8 D-39.3 D-39.9
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. (Signal) D-48.9 (1) D-52.0 E-63.9 E-73.5 *
[4.2%]
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/Wondercolor
(Signal)
C-28.0 (1) C-30.2 C-26.5 C-26.8
S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. (Signal) C-28.4 (1) C-28.8 C-32.7 C-35.8
(1) Signalized level of service – control delay in seconds.
(2) All way stop – control delay in seconds.
(3) Unsignalized level of service – control delay in seconds, Allerton stop sign controlled approach.
[xx%] – project volume percent of total traffic entering intersection
Bolded results = unacceptable operation * = significant impact
Year 2000/2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-12 2017 OPSP UPDATE
VEHICLE QUEUING
Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined projections of vehicle queuing on the critical
approaches to three signalized off-ramp intersections evaluated in this study and on the approaches to
adjacent intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off-ramp intersection:
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / South Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane intersection
U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp / Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
intersection
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / Dubuque Avenue intersection and the adjacent Oyster Point
Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection
In addition, off-ramp queuing was also evaluated on the U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp connection to
East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive. While this off-ramp is not controlled on its approach to this first
intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major intersection to the east (at Grand
Avenue Overcrossing). Queuing results for this signalized location were evaluated to see if any
queuing extended back to the off-ramp. Projections are provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn
lanes and other surface street approaches that have nearby adjacent intersections.
Queuing Standards
The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile
vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches
to intersections adjacent to off-ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off-ramp
traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire
AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend
beyond this length five percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in
this study for Existing (2016) and 2040 Without and With OPSP conditions. Off-ramp queuing has
been evaluated using both the Synchro software output which details queuing for one of the signal
cycles during the peak traffic hour.
Existing Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
Table 16.5 shows that the following intersections have 95th percentile queuing demand greater than
available storage.
AM Peak Hour
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
o Oyster Point eastbound left turn
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp
o Southbound Off-Ramp right turn
E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard
o E. Grand eastbound left turn
PM Peak Hour
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
o Oyster Point westbound thru and right turn lanes
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-13
Table 16.5 – 95th Percentile Queues* - Existing (2016) Intersections at or Near U.S.101
Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the OPSP
95th Percentile Queue* in Feet
Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Distance
in Feet
Without
OPSP
With
OPSP
Without
OPSP
With
OPSP
Airport Blvd./U.S. 101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps
Off-Ramp Left and Left/Right
Turn
1225 188 194 412 424
NB Thru and Thru/Right Turn 900 172 180 334 354
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. PM
WB Left Turn 370 108 110 140 142
WB Thru and Thru/Right Turn 520 204 224 600 818*
[2.6%]
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp AM
EB Left Turn 310 378 390
[0.0%]
156 185
EB Thru/Right 725 371 383 136 176
WB Thru 825 94 107 492 533
WB Left Turn 1375 178 406 614 952
WB Right Turn 1340 110 114 334 382
NB Left Turn 520 154 158 386 386
NB Thru 260 54 54 87 89
NB Right Turn 460 448 554*
[19.0%]
62 94
Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 SB On and NB Off-Ramps PM
Off-Ramp/Left/Thru 1295 416 496 250 295
SB Right Turn 600 26 25 25 25
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp
SB Off-Ramp Thru 5940 770 900 134 156
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 375 512 513
[0.0%]
86 87
EB Thru 2610 1152 1437 159 240
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.
SB Airport Blvd. Left Turn/Thru 900 732 736 514 577
SB Airport Blvd. Right Turn 90 22 25 29 30
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
NB Approach 3790 200 200 333 333
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd.
EB Left Turn 150 225 225
[0.0%]
118 140
EB Through 870 185 300 413 413
S. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave.
WB Combined Left/Thru 1680 698 715 825 848
WB Right Turn 90 25 25 25 25
S. Airport Blvd./Gateway Blvd./Mitchell Ave.
EB Left Turn 170 105 115 48 113
EB Combined Thru/Right 1400 888 1043 540 540
U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp/S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane
All Off-Ramp Lanes 2150 846 1001 368 371
*Synchro software used for all analysis year 2010 where possible, otherwise year 2000.
[xx%] – project percent of turn or through movement
Bolded results = unacceptable operation * = significant impact
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-14 2017 OPSP UPDATE
FREEWAY OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments were evaluated based on the Year 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
U.S. 101 existing traffic conditions were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM Peak Hours. Existing
traffic volumes used for the analysis were obtained from May 2016 freeway mainline counts from the
Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for U.S.101 in South San Francisco on the same
day as the intersection turn movement counts. Existing U.S.101 mainline AM and PM peak hour
volumes are presented in Figure 5 in Appendix J.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Freeways
The LOS standards established for freeways in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based
on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county border, the LOS
standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring
counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the
existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining freeway segments,
the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000.
If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a
CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect an already deficient baseline
LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP-
designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental or
other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must
indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate
the deficient conditions. In determining whether a Deficiency Plan is required or not, traffic originating
outside the County may be excluded from the modeling prior to determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing Levels of Service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon analysis
of year 2016 volumes. LOS A through E are considered acceptable operating conditions for U.S. 101 in
South San Francisco. Table 16.6 shows that currently all U.S.101 freeway segments are operating at
acceptable levels during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along
U.S.101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard with LOS E operation in both directions during the AM
peak hour and in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour.
OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE
Analysis Methodology and Standards
Caltrans uses an off-ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can
be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freeway mainline and 2,300
vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit by a two-lane off-ramp.
Existing Off-Ramp Diverge Operations
Table 16.7 shows that currently all U.S.101 freeway off-ramps serving South San Francisco and the
East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 or 2,300 vehicles per hour
during the AM and PM peak traffic hours.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-15
Table 16.6 – Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2016 Without and With OPSP
Without OPSP With 2017 OPSP Update
Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density
AM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8023 E 38.5 7928 E 37.7
Southbound 7692 E 35.7 7774 E 36.4
North of I-380
Northbound 10951 D 32.8 11073 D 33.4
Southbound 7936 C 20.7 8036 C 21.0
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 7668 E 35.5 7823 E 36.8
Southbound 6852 D 29.9 6880 D 30.1
North of I-380
Northbound 7551 C 21.0 7589 C 21.1
Southbound 8677 C 22.9 8846 C 23.4
Bolded results = unacceptable operation
LOS = Level of service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-16 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Table 16.7 – Off-Ramp Capacity and Volumes at Diverge From Freeway Mainline – Existing (2016) and
Year 2040 With and Without OPSP Traffic – AM and PM Peak Hours
AM PEAK HOUR
Volumes
Existing (2016) Year 2040
U.S.101 Off-Ramp
Diverge
Capacity
(Veh/Hr)
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
SB Off-Ramp to Airport
Blvd.
1500(1) 245 253 383 381 378
SB Off-Ramp to Oyster
Point/Gateway
1500(1) 1011 1097 1418 1488 1607*
[13.3%]
NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport
Blvd./ Wondercolor
2300(2) 1567 1677 2406 2426
[0.8%]
2472*
[2.7%]
NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand
Ave./Executive Dr.
2300(2) 1384 1395 1392 1405 1404
NB Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Ave.
1500(1) 779 903 1165 1312 1301
PM PEAK HOUR
Volumes
Existing (2016) Year 2040
U.S.101 Off-Ramp
Diverge
Capacity
(Veh/Hr)
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
SB Off-Ramp to Airport
Blvd.
1500(1) 552 554 621 621 618
SB Off-Ramp to Oyster
Point/Gateway
1500(1) 187 209 209 260 211
NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport
Blvd./ Wondercolor
2300(2) 553 556 746 734 753
NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand
Ave./Executive Dr.
2300(2) 481 483 483 483 483
NB Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Ave.
1500(1) 486 539 590 632 593
(1) Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the
freeway mainline.
(2) Volume limit for a two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline.
Bolded results = unacceptable operation * = significant impact
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-17
ON-RAMP OPERATION
Analysis Methodology and Standards
On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning level methodology contained in the Year 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (page 25-4/Exhibit 25-3). Capacity is dependent upon the free flow speed of
on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200
vehicles per hour, while for single lane button hook or curving on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000
vehicles per hour.
Existing On-Ramp Operations
Table 16.8 shows that currently, all U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco and the
East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and
PM peak hours.
Table 16.8 – On-Ramp Capacity and Volumes - Existing (2016) and Year 2040 With and Without OPSP
Traffic – AM and PM Peak Hours
AM PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
EXISTING (2016) YEAR 2040
U.S.101 On-Ramp
Capacity(1)
(Veh/Hr)
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
SB On-Ramp from Dubuque
Ave.
2000 707 825 787 876 825
SB On-Ramp from Produce
Ave.
3300(2) 1082 1093 1336 1344 1342
NB On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave.
2200 793 806 912 948 902
PM PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
EXISTING (2016) YEAR 2040
U.S.101 On-Ramp
Capacity(1)
(Veh/Hr)
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
Without
OPSP
With
2017 OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
SB On-Ramp from Dubuque
Ave.
2000 1052 1265 1506 1663 1641
SB On-Ramp from Produce
Ave.
3300(2) 1891 1908 2340 2361 2332
NB On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave.
2200 1289 1382 2482 2602*
[4.8%]
2563*
[3.3%]
(1) Planning level capacity: Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Exhibit 13-10, Transportation Research
Board.
(2) Two-lane on-ramp.
Bolded results = unacceptable operation * = significant impact
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-18 2017 OPSP UPDATE
TRANSIT AND SHUTTLE SERVICE
Transit service in the study area that is expected to be available to development in the OPSP area
includes bus service west of the U.S. 101 freeway (SamTrans), shuttle service, ferry service and
regional rail service (Caltrain and BART). Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix J show shuttle service east of
the U.S.101 freeway in the OPSP vicinity, while Tables 3, 4 and 5 in Appendix J list the BART,
Caltrain and ferry service schedules to the Oyster Point area.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)2 provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco
and San Mateo County, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae
Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north and Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburg/Bay
Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont in the East Bay. The South San Francisco Station is located
approximately four miles northwest of the OPSP at Mission Road and McLellan Drive. BART trains
operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during off-peak hours.
Caltrain3 provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose, and
limited service trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San
Francisco Caltrain station is currently located approximately 1.5 miles west of the OPSP at 590
Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of U.S.101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. By 2019,
Caltrain plans to relocate the South San Francisco Caltrain station several hundred feet to the south
near the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. The South San Francisco Caltrain station serves
local and limited trains with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San
Francisco Caltrain station provides weekday service from 5:40 AM to 12:00 AM with 60-minute
headways during off-peak times.
Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) 4 Provides commuter ferry service between
Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco ferry terminal at Oyster Point. There are
three morning departures from Oakland/Alameda to South San Francisco and three evening departures
from South San Francisco to Oakland/Alameda.
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans)5 provides bus and rail service (through Caltrain) in
San Mateo County. No SamTrans routes stop east of Highway 101 in South San Francisco.
Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org) 6 shuttles provide first/last mile
connections between BART and Caltrain stations and the WETA ferry terminal and local employers in
the East of 101 area. The Oyster Point shuttles connect Caltrain, BART and ferry riders to Oyster Point,
Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue during peak commute hours, between 6:30 AM and 10:00 AM,
and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The Utah-Grand shuttles connect Caltrain, BART and ferry riders
to East Grand Avenue and Utah Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours,
between 5:30 AM and 9:30 AM. Both shuttle services provide 30-minute headways. The nearest stops
are located at the East Grand Avenue turnaround adjacent to Building 43 (served by the Utah-Grand
area shuttles), Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road (served by the Utah-Grand area shuttles) and Forbes
Boulevard/Carlton Court (served by the Oyster Point area shuttles).
2 All transit service descriptions from Genentech Master Plan Draft Transportation Impact Assessment, January
2017, by Fehr & Peers.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-19
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Sidewalks are in place along Oyster Point Boulevard within the OPSP site. There are no sidewalks
along Marina Boulevard. However, there are paved pathways in Oyster Point Park adjacent to Marina
Boulevard. Several pedestrian improvements are planned in the East of 101 area. The South San
Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan calls for a pedestrian and bicycle rail crossing underpass
connecting the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection to the new Caltrain station, expected to
be completed by 2019. The South San Francisco Pedestrian Plan calls for the closure of sidewalk gaps
in the area, prioritizing Forbes Boulevard, Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails and paths, as well as bike
parking, bike lockers and showers for cyclists. On-street bicycle facilities are generally grouped into
four categories:
Class I: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and
pedestrians with cross-flow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths).
Class II: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.
Class III: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often signed or
include a striped bicycle lane.
Class IV: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a
roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are
not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers or on-street parking.
There are no Class I, II or Class III bicycle lane designations along Oyster Point Boulevard or Marina
Boulevard internal to the OPSP site, although there are numerous bicycle facilities available in the
study area. Bike lanes are provided along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister Cities
Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, Forbes Boulevard (to the
east of Allerton Avenue), and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are
designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the
East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive, and along the shoreline (Bay
Trail). Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue and Allerton
Avenue. Future bike routes are also planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of Allerton Avenue) and
along the Caltrain right-of-way. The proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the
General Plan Transportation Element.7
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100
or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a
project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management). The
purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows:
Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential
development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City’s
police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
7 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan: Transportation Element, 1999, Figure 4-3.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-20 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the
City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated.
Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services,
incentives, and facilities.
Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new
developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage.
Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development.
Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter.
Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are
implemented.
The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a moderate TDM
program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing
traffic generation rates, while an intensive TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an
additional 20 to 25 percent. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips at
commercial/residential developments by incorporating project components such as encouraging
increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.
South San Francisco has a “menu” of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number of points
that relate to the program’s effectiveness. South San Francisco’s program includes a list of required and
additional measures, and each applicant is required to meet a minimum alternative mode shift
requirement. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking,
shuttle services, and on-site amenities.
AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION OVER TRANSPORTATION IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO8
The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all local City streets and City-operated traffic
signals within the study area. Several regional agencies, including the City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), the Congestion Management Agency in San Mateo
County, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), coordinate and establish funding
priorities for intra-regional transportation improvement programs. Freeways serving South San
Francisco (U.S.101, I-380 and I-280), associated local freeway ramps, and local surface highway
segments are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Transit service providers such as BART, Caltrain, SamTrans and the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (ferry service) have jurisdiction over their respective services.
PERTINENT PLANS AND POLICIES9
South San Francisco General Plan Transportation Chapter: The City of South San Francisco
General Plan (1999) defines transportation and land use policies for the City. The General Plan seeks to
expand transportation capacity in the East of 101 area and improve multimodal connectivity across the
U.S.101 freeway and Caltrain corridor. The General Plan strives to manage traffic congestion and
encourage riding transit, walking and biking.
South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan: The City of South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan
(2011) identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance bicycle access. The plan analyzes
8 Genentech Master Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, January 2017.
9 Ibid.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-21
bicycle demand and gaps in bicycle facilities and recommends improvements and programs for
implementation.
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: The City of South San Francisco Pedestrian Master
Plan (2012) identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance pedestrian access. The plan
analyzes pedestrian demand and gaps in pedestrian facilities, and recommends improvements and
programs for implementation.
South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan: The City of South San Francisco
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (2015) defines transportation and land use policies for the
downtown area. The plan identifies transportation improvements for all modes to support transit-
oriented development around a new location for the South of San Francisco Caltrain station near the
Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection.
South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: The City of South San
Francisco TDM Ordinance (Ord. 1432 Section 2, 2010) seeks to reduce the amount of traffic generated
by nonresidential development and minimize drive-alone commute trips. The ordinance establishes a
performance standard of 28 percent minimum alternative mode share for all nonresidential projects
resulting in more than 100 average daily trips, and identifies a higher threshold for projects requesting a
floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The ordinance identifies a number of required and optional trip reduction
measures for inclusion in a TDM Plan. The ordinance requires an annual survey program to ensure that
desired transportation mode shares are achieved.
East of 101 Study and Transportation Improvement Fee Program: The City of South San Francisco
East of 101 Study was prepared and adopted by the City in 2011 to establish a source of funding for
future transportation system capital improvements in the City. The East of 101 Study and its associated
transportation improvement fee program includes funding for a variety of transportation improvement
projects located in the East of 101 area. Near the proposed project, the plan calls for a range of
improvements at study intersections, such as the installation of traffic signals at the East Grand
Avenue/Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue/DNA Way intersections, or lane modifications to the
East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard intersection. Transportation improvement fees may
also fund enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, consistent with the Bicycle Master
Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan.
C/CAG Guidelines: C/CAG has adopted guidelines as part of its CMA, which are intended to reduce
the regional traffic impacts of substantive new developments. The guidelines apply to all projects in
San Mateo County that will generate 100 or more net new peak hour trips on the CMP network and are
subject to CEQA review. C/CAG calls for projects that meet the criteria to determine if a combination
of acceptable measures is possible that has the capacity to “fully reduce” through time the use of a trip
credit system, the demand for net new trips that the project is anticipated to generate on the CMP
roadway network (including the first 100 trips). C/CAG has published a list of mitigation options in a
memorandum that also outlines a process for obtaining C/CAG approval.
San Francisco Bay Trail Plan: The San Francisco Bay Trail Plan (Association of Bay Area
Governments, 1989) and Enhanced San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan (California Coastal
Conservancy, 2011) provide guidance to the development of a shared use bicycle and pedestrian path
that will in the future allow continuous travel around the San Francisco Bay.
YEAR 2040 WITHOUT OPSP OPERATING CONDITIONS
Year 2040 Without OPSP conditions include traffic generated by full development of the Genentech
Master Plan, the Gateway Master Plan, the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point development as well as other
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-22 2017 OPSP UPDATE
increases in manufacturing, commercial, office and R&D uses. Existing land uses have been assumed
on the OPSP site for the 2040 Without OPSP evaluation based upon City direction. The list of all
development expected in the East of 101 area by 2040 is presented in Table 16.9. Totals include the
OPSP development. In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport Boulevard to/from
Brisbane to the north as well as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other surface streets to the west of the
U.S. 101 freeway were projected to grow from 2016 to 2040 at rates projected in the C/CAG regional
model (after allowance for traffic to/from new development east of the 101 freeway).
Table 16.9: Development Expected in East of 101 Area by 2040 (including OPSP and existing)
Land Use Unit Year 2040
Land Uses Tracked by Square Footage
Commercial Assembly SF 39,460
Commercial SF 975,513
Hotel SF 2,099,513
Industrial SF 7,620,852
Industrial/Genentech SF 74,249
Mix/Genentech SF 9,998,777
Office/R&D SF 12,173,092
Residential SF 2,140,000
Parking Spaces SF 447,048
Grand Total SF 35,396,766
Land Uses Tracked by Other Metrics
Residential Units Unit 2,088
Hotel Rooms Rooms 3,829
Parking Spaces 1,729
Schools Students 0
Source: W&S Solutions
Year 2040 intersection AM and PM peak hour as well as U.S.101 freeway segment traffic volumes
were developed by the City’s Update of the East of 101 and Downtown Specific Plan traffic model.
Year 2040 Without OPSP AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures 8 and 9
in Appendix J, while U.S.101 mainline AM and PM peak hour freeway volumes are presented in
Figure 10 in Appendix J.
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2040
At City Public Works Department direction, all roadway improvements currently listed in the City’s
July 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area were assumed to be built and in
operation for year 2040 Without and With OPSP evaluation. Figure 11 in Appendix J provides a
schematic presentation of year 2040 intersection approach lanes and control. Please note that Figure 11
in Appendix J does not include roadway improvements associated with the OPSP.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-23
Intersection Level of Service
16 of 24 intersections with year 2040 Without OPSP volumes would be operating at acceptable levels
of service with the following operating at non-acceptable levels of service (Table 16.10).
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
Forbes Boulevard / Allerton Avenue (All Way Stop)
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
E. Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
E. Grand Avenue / Allerton Avenue (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
S. Airport Boulevard / Utah Avenue (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
Vehicle Queuing
The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year
2040 Without OPSP queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software
program (Table 16.11).
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach left turn and
through/right movement as well as the northbound Dubuque Avenue right turn movement
would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
PM Peak Hour: The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn movement, the Oyster
Point Boulevard eastbound left turn movement as well as the Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound through and right turn movements would have 95th percentile queue demands
greater than available storage.
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S. Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The U.S.101 southbound off-ramp right turn and the Oyster Point
Boulevard eastbound through movements would have 95th percentile queue demands
greater than available storage.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-24 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through and
through/right turn lanes would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available
storage.
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound left and left/through lanes would have
95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The E. Grand eastbound through and left turn lanes would have 95th
percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
PM Peak Hour: The E. Grand eastbound left turn lane would have a 95th percentile queue
demand greater than available storage.
S. Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The S. Airport Boulevard eastbound left turn movement would have a
95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
U.S.101 Northbound Ramps / S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: The northbound Off-Ramp approach would have a 95th percentile queue
demand greater than available storage.
U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service
The following mainline freeway segment with year 2040 Without OPSP volumes would be operating at
unacceptable Levels of Service (Table 16.12).
U.S.101 (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
AM Peak Hour: Northbound LOS F operation
Southbound LOS F operation
PM Peak Hour: Northbound LOS F operation
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
The following off-ramps would have year 2040 Without OPSP volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour
on a one-lane off-ramp and 2,300 vehicles/hour on a two-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway
mainline (see Table 16.7).
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: 2,406 vehicles per hour using off-ramp with a diverge capacity of 2,300
vehicles/hour.
On-Ramp Operation
The following on-ramps would have 2040 Without OPSP volumes exceeding 2,000 to 2,200
vehicles/hour on a single lane on-ramp or 3,300 vehicles/hour on a two-lane on-ramp (Table 16.8).
Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
PM Peak Hour: 2,497 vehicles using on-ramp with a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-25
Table 16.10 – Intersection Level of Service – Year 2040 With and Without OPSP Traffic
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection (1) Without
OPSP
With
2017
OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
Without
OPSP
With
2017
OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) C-29.6 C-29.7 C-29.8 C-35.7 D-40.5 D-35.8
Airport Blvd./Tower Pl (Signal) B-15.7 B-15.9 B-15.9 C-23.4 C-24.9 C-24.4
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point
Blvd. (Signal)
D-49.3 D-50.1 D-49.6 D-47.46 D-48.1 D-46.8
Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./ U.S.101 NB On-
Ramp (Signal)
D-53.8 E-69.1*
[7.6%]
E-64.7*
[4.6%]
D-38.6 D-39.8 D-40.4
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp and SB
On-Ramp (Signal)
B-10.5 B-11.1 B-11.1 B-11.3 B-12.0 B-11.6
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway/ U.S.101 SB Off-
Ramp Flyover (Signal)
D-54.1 E-72.4*
[10.0%]
F-82.1*
[9.6%]
D-37.8 D-48.8
D-39.7
Oyster Point/Veterans Blvd (Signal) C-30.7 D-39.6 D-54.6 B-14.6 B-14.6 B-13.8
Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-19.8 C-33.6 D-53.4 B-13.5 B-15.0 B-13.7
Oyster Point/345-347 Oyster Point (Signal) A-4.4 A-7.3 A-7.3 B-16.0 B-19.8 C-20.1
Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) F-98.5 F-82.9 (2)
[23.7%]
E-76.4 (2)
[20.4%]
D-50.7 D-53.6 E-55.7*
[11.7%]
Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-18.2 B-19.0 B-19.6 B-16.7 B-18.1 B-18.2
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. (All Way Stop
Control)
D-33.7 E-40.8*
[4.2%]
E-47.4*
[8.3%]
E-38.7 E-43.0*
[2.7%]
E-43.2*
[3.8%]
Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) F-117.3 F-121.7*
[3.1%]
F-116.8
[0%]
D-45.1 D-53.0
D-41.2
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) E-74.1 E-76.3
[0.9%]
E-79.7*
[2.3%]
E-70.0 E-76.5
[-0.3%]
E-68.6
[-0.4%]
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-5.9 A-9.1 A-6.5 C-21.9 C-21.9 C-22.6
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
(Signal)
A-5.6 A-5.6 A-5.5 A-8.5 A-8.5 A-8.0
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) D-47.1 D-48.4 D-51.6 C-31.4 C-31.7 C-30.6
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way
(Signal)
D-42.2 D-42.2 D-46.3 D-43.9 D-44.6 E-61.0*
[9.5%]
E. Grand Ave./Littlefield Ave. (Signal) F-131.5 F-137.0
[0.5%]
F-128.8
[0.3%]
B-18.7 B-18.7 B-19.1
E. Grand Ave./Allerton Ave. (Signal) B-10.7 B-11.4 B-12.5 F-143.4 F-148.5
[1.0%]
F-122.1*
[2.02%]
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave.
(Signal)
D-40.8 D-40.8 D-40.8 D-43.4 D-44.9 D-43.1
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.
(Signal)
D-44.2 D-45.1 D-46.0 D-44.9 D-47.1 D-45.8
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook
Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal)
E-74.0 E-74.4
[0.7%]
E-70.0
[0.7%]
D-52.5 D-52.6 E-56.4*
[2.4%]
S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. (Signal) F-121.5 F-121.8
[0.1%]
F-129.5*
[2.1%]
D-37.9 D-37.9 D-39.2
(1) Signalized level of service – control delay in seconds, All way stop – control delay in seconds.
(2) Improved LOS due to additional eastbound through lane on Oyster Point approach that is part of project
improvements.
[xx%] – increase in traffic due to OPSP.
Bolded results = unacceptable operation * = significant impact
Year 2000/2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-26 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Table 16.11 – 95th Percentile Queues* - Year 2040 Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges With and
Without OPSP Traffic
95th Percentile Queue* in Feet
Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Distance
in Feet
Without
OPSP
With
2017
OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
Without
OPSP
With
2017
OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
Airport Blvd./U.S. 101 SB On/Off Hook Ramps
Off-Ramp Left and Left/Right
Turn
1225 396 396 392 586 586 580
NB Thru and Thru/Right Turn 900 292 294 292 548 586 514
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.
WB Left Turn 370 156 166 152 238 248 234
WB Thru and Thru/Right Turn 520 462 500 462 1930 2024*
[2.5%]
1780
[0.4%]
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp
EB Left Turn 310 658 660
[0.0%]
660
[0.0%]
498 508
[0.0%]
514
[0.0%]
EB Thru/Right 725 1094 1599*
[1.8%]
2041*
[2.6%]
685 756*
[8.7%]
699
WB Thru 825 152 158 152 1866 1858
[3.9%]
1708
[0.8%]
WB Left Turn 1375 356 620 488 1340 1460*
[12.7%]
1482*
[10.8%]
WB Right Turn 1340 184 184 184 1418 1400 1338
NB Left Turn 520 292 292 294 678 678
[0.0%]
676
[0.0%]
NB Thru 260 75 76 75 172 172 176
NB Right Turn 460 1228 1572*
[16.2%]
1546*
[14.9%]
88 118 92
Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 SB On and NB Off-Ramps
Off-Ramp/Left/Thru 1295 486 601 593 300 331 304
SB Right Turn 600 25 38 25 25 38 34
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp
SB Off-Ramp Thru 5940 1346 1492 1746 212 274 214
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 375 522 530
[0.0%]
530
[0.0%]
115 115 115
EB Thru 2800 3160 3608*
[10.4%]
3624*
[10.2%]
308 432 324
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.
SB Airport Blvd. Left
Turn/Thru
1200 1828 1852
[0.8%]
1990*
[5.0%]
768 786 726
SB Airport Blvd. Right Turn 90 45 45 45 54 55 53
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
NB Approach 3790 270 270 270 473 475 473
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd.
EB Left Turn 150 293 293
[0.6%]
315*
[7.6%]
278 280*
[1.4%]
260
[0%]
EB Through 870 1950 2048
[0.3%]
2393*
[2.0%]
465 495 510
S. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave.
WB Combined Left/Thru 1930 886 916 868 1465 1488 1465
WB Right Turn 90 25 25 25 25 25 25
continued on next page
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-27
Table 16.11 – 95th Percentile Queues* - Year 2040 Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges With and
Without OPSP Traffic
95th Percentile Queue* in Feet
Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Distance
in Feet
Without
OPSP
With
2017
OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
Without
OPSP
With
2017
OPSP
Update
With
2011
OPSP
S. Airport Blvd./Gateway Blvd./Mitchell Ave.
EB Left Turn 170 195 245*
[12.5%]
250*
[13.4%]
60 75 55
EB Combined Thru/Right 1400 1218 1233 1230 605 625 615
U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp/S. Airport Blvd./Wondercolor Lane
All Off-Ramp Lanes 2150 2812 2813
[0.8%]
2840*
[2.7%]
635 621 638
Synchro software used for all analysis 2010 where possible, otherwise 2000.
[xx%] – turn or through movement increase due to project or 2011 Specific Plan.
Bolded results = 95 percentile queue length greater than available storage * = significant impact
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table 16.12 Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2040 Without and With OPSP
Without OPSP With 2017 OPSP Update With 2011 OPSP
Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density
AM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 9492 F 50.6 9455 F [-0.4%] 50.1 9416 F [-0.8%] 49.6
Southbound 9528 F 51.1 9609 F [0.9%] 52.2 9655 F* [1.3%] 52.9
North of I-380
Northbound 13317 E 43.3 13416 E 44.4 13465 E 44.4
Southbound 8981 C 22.7 9078 C 22.7 9307 C 23.7
PM Peak Hour
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 11634 F 110 11787 F* [1.3%] 119.6 11786 F* [1.3%] 119.6
Southbound 8720 E 41.8 8748 E 42.0 8735 E 41.9
North of I-380
Northbound 10268 D 28.3 10305 D 28.4 10272 D 28.4
Southbound 11028 D 29.8 11160 D 30.4 11275 D 30.8
Bolded results = unacceptable operation
* = significant impact [xx%] = percent traffic added by project
LOS = Level of service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-28 2017 OPSP UPDATE
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco and
C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be significant if they result in any of
the following conditions:
a. The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system
(C/CAG criteria only).
b. Signalized intersection operation and all-way-stop operation would change from Level of
Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the
intersection would be increased by at least two percent.
c. Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign
controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total
volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. Side
street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25
trips during any peak traffic hour.
d. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet
peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing
signal warrant criteria levels.
e. The proposed project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two
percent or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or
F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled
Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign
controlled approach).
f. The proposed project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two
percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal
warrant criteria levels.
g. Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing on all
freeway off-ramps and also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from
off-ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro software
program), or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway off-ramps or on the
approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off-ramp intersections is already
projected at unacceptable lengths, the project would increase queuing volumes by one
percent or more.
h. Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S. 101 freeway or freeway ramps from
LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes
by more than one percent or on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS
F operation.
i. If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow
through various parts of the project site.
j. Project parking would not meet City criteria.
k. Project development or project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit
or shuttle service.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-29
l. If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a
significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened.
INCREASED VEHICLE TRIPS
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following mitigation measure or significance conclusion. Trip generation under
the 2017 OPSP Update would be substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. However, because
the specific amount of peak hour traffic has been revised due to updated modeling, the impact
statement has been revised.
Revised Impact Traf-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The OPSP would
generate more than 100 net new two-way trips during the AM and PM peak hours
(1,402 580 trips during the AM peak hour and 1,621 595 trips during the PM peak
hour; see Table 16.19). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion
Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”) specifies that local jurisdictions
must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips
(including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The OPSP sponsors shall
implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with
the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.400 Transportation
Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once
implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The
C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
measure.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
See Table 16.1 for OPSP trip generation. While CEQA specifies that existing uses at a site are the
baseline against which to compare changes due to a project, Table 16.1 also presents a comparison of
the OPSP trip generation including the 2017 OPSP Update versus the previous 2011 OPSP without the
current update. As shown in Table 16.1, the 2017 OPSP Update has substantially the same trip
generation, with the same total trips in the AM peak hour and a minimal increase of 25 total trips in the
PM peak hour over the 2011 OPSP trip generation. Overall trip generation would be substantially the
same between the 2011 OPSP and the 2017 OPSP Update.
It can also be noted that while conformance with the required 25% trip reduction would be assured by
the above measure, the applicants are currently proposing a TDM Plan with a greater 40% trip
reduction, which would further reduce traffic impacts.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following significance conclusion, as the OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP
Update, would generate pedestrian traffic. However, the wording of the impact and mitigation have
been revised to remove reference to previous plans.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-30 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Revised Impact Traf-2: Pedestrian Walkways. Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of Oyster
Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard internal to the OPSP site. Sidewalks will
also be provided along both sides of all other internal roadways connecting to
Marina Boulevard. The Phase I TDM Conceptual Site Plan (June 1, 2010) shows
pedestrian connections between OPSP buildings and the sidewalks lining Oyster
Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard. No such detail has been provided by the
applicant for the other phases of development. Pedestrian Facilities. The OPSP
would result in additional local area pedestrian traffic internal and adjacent to the
OPSP site, particularly along the Bay Trail, to/from OPSP restaurants and between
OPSP residences and nearby employment. Sidewalks will be provided along both
sides of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard internal to the OPSP site.
Sidewalks will also be provided along both sides of all other internal roadways
connecting to Marina Boulevard.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-2: Pedestrian Facilities. To discourage mid-block crossing, pedestrian flow across
Oyster Point Boulevard between the Phase III & IV garage and the Phase III & IV
offices shall be regulated to the following extent.
Pedestrian access shall only be allowed at the north and south ends of the
garage, adjacent to signalized or all-way stop intersections.
As part of Precise Plan review and approvals, the City will ensure that
development in the OPSP provides a network of sidewalks connecting Oyster
Point Boulevard, Marina Boulevard and all other internal streets to all office R&D,
residential, and commercial buildings.
Impacts reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change
Impact and mitigation measure Traf-2b, or the less-than-significant with mitigation conclusion, as the
potential to disrupt the Bay Trail during construction remains substantially unchanged since the 2011
EIR.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS): While the residential proposed with
the 2017 OPSP Update may result in marginally more bicycle use in the area, the 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following significance conclusion as the requirement for roadway bicycle
improvements and on-site facilities remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. The impact
statement has been revised to remove reference to previous plans.
Revised Impact Traf-3: Bicycle Lane. The OPSP would result in additional local area bicycle traffic,
including residents’ and employees’ use of the Bay Trail and trips to/from
employment. Class II bicycle lanes will be provided along Oyster Point Boulevard
and Marina Boulevard their entire lengths internal to the OPSP site. The Bay Trail
bike/pedestrian path will also be completed internal to the OPSP site. The Phase I
TDM conceptual site plan shows that bikeInternal bicycle circulation and bicycle
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-31
parking areas will be provided to meet code requirements, which will be reviewed
and approved as part of Precise Plan review within the building’s garage.
These would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
SHUTTLE SERVICE FACILITIES
More Significant Conclusion (NI conclusion changed to LTS): With the same number of daily trips
and similar peak hour trips, the 2017 OPSP Update would be expected to result in a similar amount of
usage of the shuttle service, though residents would be expected to use the shuttle in the opposite
direction, when the shuttle would otherwise have fewer passengers. However, the 2011 EIR did not
specifically consider potential impacts to shuttle service (so would be assumed to have been no
impact), and therefore, the following impact statement has been added and the significance conclusion
formalized as less than significant.
New Impact Traf-4: Shuttle Service. The OPSP will increase demand for shuttle service by
employees and residents. However, required TDM Plans will identify usage of and
contribution to shuttle services and increased participation in the program could
improve cost efficiency of shuttle service.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM conclusion changed to LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update
would result in significance conclusions that are reduced in severity from those previously identified.
The 2017 OPSP Update includes signalization as warranted and no circulation deficiencies have been
identified on the current plans. Therefore, the impact statement has been revised and the mitigation has
been removed.
Revised Impact Traf-5: Internal Circulation. The realigned Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard intersection is proposed to be signalized with the realignment of those
streets in the OPSP area, which will occur with Phase I development. The plan for
other roadways and garage access looks to be generally acceptable and would be
assessed on a design-level as part of standard precise plan approvals required for
development projects in the OPSP area, including the 2017 OPSP Update area.
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
This less-than-significant impact replaces 2011 EIR impacts and MMs Traf-4 and Traf-5, which
assessed a previous version of the plan for development in the area and required the above-identified
signalization as well as signalization for garage access that has since been revised.
EXISTING (2016) WITH OPSP INTERSECTION OPERATION
Less Significant Conclusion (LTS with MM conclusion changed to LTS): Due to changes in the
existing circulation system and patterns, two intersections that were previously determined to be
operating at unacceptable levels in the 2011 EIR have been modeled for this SEIR to be operating
under acceptable conditions both with and without addition of OPSP traffic to the existing condition.
Therefore, Impacts and mitigation measures Traf-6 (related to the Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection) and Traf-7 (related to the Oyster
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-32 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard intersection)have been deleted and replaced with the less-than-
significant revised impact Traf-6.
Revised Impact Traf-6: Intersection Level of Service. With the exception of the Gateway Boulevard
/ S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue intersection discussed in Impact Traf-6,
no intersections would receive a significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to existing traffic.
These would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
Table 16.4 presents results of the level of service analysis. This less-than-significant impact replaces
2011 EIR impacts and MMs Traf-6 and Traf-7.
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following significance conclusion as the intersection would remain impacted by
OPSP traffic substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. The specifics of the impact and
mitigation measure have been revised consistent with updated modeling.
Revised Impact Traf-87: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Phase I Project OPSP traffic to year 2015
Base Case + Phase I Project Without OPSP existing volumes.
Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would degrade acceptable LOS D Base
Case operation to unacceptable LOS E Base Case + Phase I Project signalized
operation. OPSP traffic would increase PM peak hour volumes by 4.2 percent
at a location with unacceptable LOS E Without OPSP operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.4 presents the results of the Existing With OPSP intersection operation analysis.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-87: Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue. (see Table 16.23
and Figure 23 in Appendix E) The following improvement would mitigate the
Phase I Project-specific OPSP impacts. This improvement is included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Phase
I Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
S. Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
Widen the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach to provide a second
exclusive right turn lane. The approach would contain one left turn lane, one
through lane and 2 exclusive right turn lanes. Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project Signalized Existing With OPSP
Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 E-63-7 seconds control delay, which is acceptable
better operation than without OPSP conditions.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-33
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. Figure 18 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection
lane geometry and controls.
EXISTING (2016) WITH OPSP VEHICLE QUEUING
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following significance conclusions as vehicle queuing at the identified locations
would remain impacted by OPSP traffic substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. The specifics
of the impacts and mitigation measures have been revised consistent with updated modeling.
Revised Impact Traf-98: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/ intersection or approach to an adjacent intersection leading
away from an off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the
addition of Phase I Project OPSP traffic to year 2015 Base Case existing volumes
(see Table 16.12).
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
The Phase I Project OPSP would increase PM peak hour volumes by 3.0 2.6
percent in the through and combined/ through/ right turn lanes on the Oyster
Point Boulevard westbound approach to Airport Boulevard at a location with
Base Case unacceptable Existing Without OPSP 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards. The through lane or and through/right turn
lane queue would be extended from 283 600 to 287 818 feet at a location with
only 250 520 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.5 presents the results of the Existing With OPSP queuing analysis.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-98: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-specific OPSP impact
on existing conditions. These improvements are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s
OPSP’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program:
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Thru / Right Turn Lanes
PM Peak Hour: Each The westbound through or and through / right turn
lanes = 203 would have a resultant 95th percentile queue demand of 584
feet, which would be less than available 250 the Existing Without OPSP
queue demand of 600 feet of storage per lane.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. Figure 18 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection
lane geometry and controls.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-34 2017 OPSP UPDATE
The Oyster Point Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Airport Boulevard intersection is included in the
City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed OPSP will pay to fund planned
improvements to this intersection that would reduce vehicle queuing and reduce the OPSP’s impact to a
level of less-than-significant.
Impact Traf-109: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The following
off-ramp/approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Phase I Project
OPSP traffic to year 2015 Base Case existing volumes (see Table 16.12).
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-
Ramp
The Phase I Project OPSP would increase AM peak hour volumes by 6.5 19.0
percent in the through right turn lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound Dubuque Avenue northbound approach to Dubuque Avenue Oyster
Point Boulevard at a location with Base Case acceptable Existing Without
OPSP 95th percentile queuing greater than established standards. The 95th
percentile vehicle right turn lane queue would be extended from 309 an
acceptable 448 up to about 327 554 feet at a location with only 250 460 feet of
storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.5 presents the results of the Existing With OPSP queuing analysis.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-109: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-specific OPSP impact
on existing conditions. These improvements are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s
OPSP’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program:
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-
Ramp
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Eastbound Approach Through Lane Dubuque Avenue Northbound Right Turn
Lanes
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through lane queue = The northbound right
turn lanes would have a resultant 95th percentile queue demand of 206460
feet, which is less than would be equal to the 309-foot Base Case queue
available 460 feet of storage.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. Figure 18 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection
lane geometry and controls.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-35
The Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection is
included in the City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed OPSP will pay
to fund planned improvements to this intersection that would reduce vehicle queuing and reduce the
OPSP’s impact to a level of less-than-significant.
EXISTING (2016) WITH OPSP FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION
Same Conclusion, Revised Statement (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following significance conclusion as contribution of OPSP traffic to the freeway mainline
would remain substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. The specifics of the impact statement
has been revised consistent with updated modeling.
Impact Traf-1610: Freeway Mainline Operation. No U.S.101 freeway mainline segment would
receive a significant impact due to the addition of Phase I Project OPSP traffic to
year 2015 Base Case Existing volumes.
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
Table 16.6 presents the results of the freeway mainline operation analysis.
EXISTING (2016) WITH OPSP U.S.101 OFF-RAMP OPERATION
Less Significant Conclusion (SU conclusion changed to LTS): Due to increased capacity having been
added since the 2011 EIR, two off-ramps that were previously determined to be operating above
capacity in the 2011 EIR have been modeled for this SEIR to be operating within available capacity
both with and without addition of OPSP traffic to the existing condition. Therefore, Impacts and
mitigation measures Traf-13 (related to the U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point
Boulevard) and Traf-14 (related to the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue) have been
deleted and replaced with the less-than-significant revised impact Traf-11.
Revised Impact Traf-11: Off-Ramp Operation. No off-ramp would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of OPSP traffic to Existing volumes.
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
Table 16.7 presents the results of the off-ramp operation analysis. This less-than-significant impact
replaces 2011 EIR impacts and MMs Traf-11, Traf-12, Traf-13 and Traf-14.
EXISTING (2016) WITH OPSP U.S.101 ON-RAMP OPERATION
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following significance conclusion as the impact of OPSP traffic on on-ramps would remain
substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. The specifics of the impact statement has been revised
consistent with updated modeling.
Revised Impact Traf-1512: On-Ramp Operation. Phase I Project OPSP traffic would not produce a
significant impact at any on-ramp (see Table 16.7).
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
Table 16.8 presents the results of the on-ramp operation analysis.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-36 2017 OPSP UPDATE
YEAR 2040 WITH OPSP INTERSECTION OPERATION
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains SU): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following significance conclusion as the impact of OPSP traffic on the Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp intersection would remain
substantially the same as under the 2011 OPSP. The specifics of the impact and mitigation measure
has been revised consistent with updated modeling and mitigation that is currently potentially feasible.
While conclusions remain the same, the 2017 OPSP Update would have marginally less severe impacts
(lower delay) at this intersection.
Revised Impact Traf-1813: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would
receive a significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base
Case 2040 Without OPSP volumes (see Table 16.16).
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-
Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 22.7 10.0 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E 2040 Without OPSP F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 22.5 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.10 presents the results of the year 2040 intersection operation analysis. The 2011 OPSP
would also produce a significant impact at this location for this time period and would result in longer
delays than with the 2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-1813: Intersection Level of Service (see Figure 24 in Appendix E). The following
improvements would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but would not
reduce them to a level of insignificance provide acceptable operation. Some of
these measures are not included as part of the current East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution
towards all measures currently not part of the TIP.
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-
Ramp
The following improvement is included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP):
Adjust signal timing.
The following improvements are not included in the East of 101 TIP. A
portion of the widening improvements are within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and
the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot
guarantee that the following mitigation will be implemented:
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-37
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound
approach (extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection. Add a second right
turn lane to the Gateway Boulevard northbound approach.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, 2
throughs and a combined through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach from 2 through
lanes and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third
eastbound departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP).
Provide northbound right turn overlap signal phasing in conjunction with
westbound left turn movements.
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech
property driveway approach (not part of TIP). Widen the southbound off-
ramp intersection approach to provide an additional lane. Stripe the
approach to provide two through lanes, a shared through/right turn lane
and an exclusive right turn lane. This measure would potentially require
widening of part of the off-ramp structure. It would also require provision
of a third eastbound departure lane for off-ramp traffic, which would
require additional right-of-way on the southeast corner of the intersection.
Resultant Base Case + OPSP 2040 With OPSP operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-194 D-45.8 seconds control delay, which would not be
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-124 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS F-118 seconds control delay, which would not be better than
Base Case operation (LOS F-108 seconds delay).
As indicated above, because a portion of the widening improvements are within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented. While it is
possible that Caltrans will approve implementation of the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this iImpact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Other than signal timing adjustments, none of the other measures are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program. Because a portion of these improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as the lead agency, cannot guarantee implementation.
Figure 19 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection lane geometry and controls. No other potentially
feasible improvements have been identified that could mitigate this impact.
More Significant Conclusion (LTS conclusion changed to SU): The 2011 EIR did not identify a
significant impact at this intersection. Due to changes in the project due to the 2017 OPSP Update, the
following impact and mitigation measure have been added and the significance conclusion revised.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-38 2017 OPSP UPDATE
New Impact Traf-14: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2040 Without OPSP
volumes.
Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 3.1 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Without OPSP operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.10 presents the results of the year 2040 intersection operation analysis. The 2011 OPSP
would not result in a significant impact at this location.
Mitigation Measure
New Traf-14: Intersection Level of Service. The following measures are not included as part of
the current East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Forbes Boulevard / Gull Road
The following improvement is not included in the East of 101 TIP. Given the
location of the additional eastbound lane and its close proximity to surrounding
development, including a City Pump Station, and due to constraints of adjacent
bike lanes and landscaping, the following improvement is not feasible:
The addition of a second eastbound lane on the Forbes Boulevard
approach and a second eastbound departure lane would improve operation
to an acceptable level.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.2 seconds delay
While the above improvement would reduce the impact to less-than-significant,
such mitigation is not feasible due to site constraints listed above. This impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
The above measures are not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and are
infeasible due to the constraints of adjacent development, bike lanes, and landscaping. Figure 19 in
Appendix J shows mitigated intersection lane geometry and controls. No other potentially feasible
improvements have been identified that could mitigate this impact.
More Significant Conclusion (LTS conclusion changed to LTS with MM): The 2011 EIR did not
identify a significant impact at this intersection. Due to the updated modeling, which forecasts changes
in the projected background 2040 traffic levels at this intersection, this intersection would experience
an impact under either the 2011 OPSP or with the 2017 OPSP Update, though delay would be
marginally lower under the 2017 OPSP Update. The following impact and mitigation measure have
been added and the significance conclusion revised.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-39
New Impact Traf-15: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2040 Without OPSP
volumes.
Forbes Boulevard / Allerton Avenue
AM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would degrade operation from an acceptable
LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E.
PM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would increase volumes by 2.7 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E Without OPSP operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.10 presents the results of the year 2040 intersection operation analysis. The 2011 OPSP
would also produce significant impacts at this location for both peak periods.
Mitigation Measure
New Traf-15: Intersection Level of Service. The following improvement would mitigate
project-specific impacts. This measure is currently included as part of the East of
101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the OPSP traffic
impact fee contribution to this program.
Forbes Boulevard / Allerton Avenue
Signalize the intersection.
Add a third lane to the Forbes Boulevard eastbound approach. Stripe the
approach with single left, through and right turn lanes.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-24.9 seconds control delay.
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-22.8 seconds control delay.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level. Figure 19 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection
lane geometry and controls.
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains SU): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following significance conclusion. However, due to the updated modeling, which forecasts
changes in the projected background 2040 traffic levels at this intersection, the impact has been shifted
from the PM Peak Hour to the AM Peak Hour, and this intersection would experience an impact under
either the 2011 OPSP or with the 2017 OPSP Update, though delay would be marginally higher under
the 2017 OPSP Update. The following impact and mitigation measure have been revised to reflect the
updated modeling.
Revised Impact Traf-1716: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive
a significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
2040 Without OPSP volumes (see Table 16.16).
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-40 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
AM Peak Hour: OPSP traffic would degrade acceptable Without OPSP LOS D
operation to an unacceptable LOS E (and increase volumes by 7.6%).
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base Case
operation to unacceptable (LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.10 presents the results of the year 2040 intersection operation analysis. The 2011 OPSP
would also produce a significant impact at this location for this peak period, though the 2017 OPSP
Update would result in a marginally greater delay.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-1716: Intersection Level of Service. The following measure would provide acceptable
operation, but is not included as part of the current East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
The following improvement is not included in the East of 101 TIP. A portion
of the widening improvements are within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
following mitigation will be implemented:
Widen the south side of the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass to provide
one additional eastbound through lane.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-40.5 seconds delay
As indicated above, because a portion of the widening improvements are
within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the City of South San Francisco, as lead
agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be
implemented. While it is possible that Caltrans will approve the
implementation of the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction,
for CEQA purposes, this iImpact would remain significant and unavoidable.
This measure is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Because a
portion of this improvement is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as the
lead agency, cannot guarantee implementation.. Figure 19 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection
lane geometry and controls. No other potentially feasible improvements have been identified that could
mitigate this impact.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-41
No CEQA Conclusions: Because the traffic model and 2040 background conditions were updated, this
analysis includes modeling of the 2011 OPSP under the current 2040 model, which allows for a direct
comparison between the potential impact of the 2011 OPSP and the changes proposed with the 2017
OPSP Update. Such an analysis is not the basis for CEQA impacts, but is provided for comparison
only. In addition to the revisions to impacts discussed above, the following intersections would
experience significant level of service impacts with the 2011 OPSP, but not the 2017 OPSP Update as
follows:
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Road – PM peak hour
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue – AM peak hour
E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way – PM peak hour
S. Airport Boulevard / U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane – PM peak hour
S. Airport Boulevard / Utah Avenue – AM peak hour
E. Grand Avenue / Allerton Avenue – PM peak hour
YEAR 2040 WITH OPSP VEHICLE QUEUING
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains SU): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following significance conclusion as the impact of OPSP traffic on the Oyster Point
Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp queuing would remain substantially
the same as under the 2011 OPSP. The specifics of the impact and mitigation measure have been
revised consistent with updated modeling and measures that are currently identified as potentially
feasible. While conclusions remain the same, the 2017 OPSP Update would have marginally less
severe impacts (shorter queue) at this intersection.
Revised Impact Traf-2617: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp or approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an
off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case 2040 Without OPSP volumes (see Table 16.17).
Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 54.610.4 percent in the
through lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach to Gateway
Boulevard and increase the 95th percentile queue above available storage. The
95th percentile vehicle queues would be extended from 756 3,160 up to about
1,200 3,608 feet with only 900 2,800 feet of storage (total all lanes).
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.11 presents the results of the year 2040 queuing analysis. The 2011 OPSP would also produce
a significant impact for this movement for this peak period.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-2617: Vehicle Queuing (see Figure 24 in Appendix E). The following improvements
would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts provide acceptable operation, but
not reduce them to a level of insignificance. These measures are not all included as
part of the current East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-42 2017 OPSP UPDATE
OPSP shall also provide fair share contribution towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp
The following improvement is included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP):
Adjust signal timing.
The following improvements are not included in the East of 101 TIP. A portion of
the widening improvements are within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the City of South
San Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that the following
mitigation will be implemented:
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound
approach (extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection. Add a second right
turn lane to the Gateway Boulevard northbound approach.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, 2
throughs and a combined through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach from 2 through
lanes and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third
eastbound departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of
TIP).Provide northbound right turn overlap signal phasing in conjunction
with westbound left turn movements.
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech
property driveway approach (not part of TIP). Widen the southbound off-
ramp intersection approach to provide an additional lane. Stripe the
approach to provide two through lanes, a shared through/right turn lane
and an exclusive right turn lane. This measure would potentially require
widening of part of the off-ramp structure. It would also need provision of
three eastbound departure lanes for off-ramp traffic, which would require
additional right-of-way on the southeast corner of the intersection.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle 2040 With OPSP Queuing
AM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through approach lanes
95th percentile queue would be reduced to 1,102 2,604 feet, which would not be
within less than the Base Case queue of 756 feet available storage of 2,800 feet.
As indicated above, because a portion of the widening improvements are within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented. While it is
possible that Caltrans will approve the implementation of the measure, thereby
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-43
reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this iImpact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Other than signal timing adjustments, none of the other measures are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program. Because a portion of these improvements are within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as the lead agency, cannot guarantee implementation.
Figure 19 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection lane geometry and controls. No other potentially
feasible improvements have been identified that could mitigate this impact.
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains SU): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following significance conclusion as the impact of OPSP traffic on the Oyster Point
Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp queuing would remain substantially the
same as under the 2011 OPSP. The specifics of the impact and mitigation measure have been revised
consistent with updated modeling and measures that are currently identified as potentially feasible.
While conclusions remain the same, the 2017 OPSP Update would have marginally less severe impacts
(shorter queues) at this intersection.
Revised Impact Traf-2718: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp or approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an
off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case 2040 Without OPSP volumes (see Table 16.17).
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 14.2 1.8 percent in the
through lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach to Dubuque
Avenue at a location with unacceptable Without OPSP Base Case 95th
percentile queuing greater than established standards. The eastbound through
lane queue storage demand would be extended from 586 1,094 up to 637 1,599
feet at a location with only 250 725 feet of total storage. In addition, the queue
lanes on the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard
would be increased beyond available storage The OPSP would also increase
volumes by 16.2 percent in the northbound Dubuque Avenue right turn lanes
where the Without OPSP 95th percentile queue demand would already be
exceeding available storage (from 78 1,288 up to 351 1,572 feet at a location
with only 250 460 feet of total storage).
PM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard The eastbound approach through
and right turn lanes queues would be extended have 95th percentile storage
demand increased above available storage (from 302 685 up to 376 756 feet
with 250 725 feet of total storage). In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach left turn lane would have 95th percentile storage demand
increased above available storage (from 1,340 up to 1,460 feet with 1,375 feet
of total storage).
This would be a significant impact.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-44 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Table 16.11 presents the results of the year 2040 queuing analysis. The 2011 OPSP would also produce
significant impacts in the same approach lanes during the AM peak hour and in the westbound left turn
lane during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-2718: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements are feasible to mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. The following improvement would provide acceptable operation, but is
not included as part of the current East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP).
Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
The following improvement is not included in the East of 101 TIP. A portion
of the widening improvements are within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that the
following mitigation will be implemented:
Widen the south side of the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass to provide
one additional eastbound through lane.
Resultant 2040 With OPSP operation
AM & PM Peak Hours – All lanes with significant impacts would have 95th
percentile queuing reduced to less than without OPSP conditions.
As indicated above, because a portion of the widening improvements are within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the
OPSP, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented. While it is
possible that Caltrans will approve the implementation of the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
The above measure is not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. Because a
portion of these improvements are within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as the
lead agency, cannot guarantee implementation. Figure 19 in Appendix J shows mitigated intersection
lane geometry and controls. No other potentially feasible improvements have been identified that could
mitigate this impact.
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update
would not change the following 2011 EIR significance conclusion as the impact of 2017 OPSP Update
traffic on the Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard queuing would
remain substantially the same as under the 2011 EIR. The specifics of the impact and mitigation
measure have been revised consistent with updated modeling. While conclusions remain substantially
the same as analyzed in the 2011 EIR, note that with the updated modeling, the 2011 OPSP would not
have shown a significant impact at this location.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-45
Revised Impact Traf-2819: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/ or approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an
off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case 2040 Without OPSP volumes (see Table 16.17).
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 7.1 percent in the left
turn lane on the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach to Airport
Boulevard at a location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The left turn lane queue would be extended from 256 up
to 273 feet at a location with only 140 feet of storage.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 3.2 2.5 percent in the
left through and through/right turn lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach to Airport Boulevard at a location with Base Case 95th
percentile queuing greater than established standards. The left turn lane queue
would be extended from 524 up to 542 feet at a location with only 140 feet of
storage. In addition, the OPSP would increase volumes by 10.5 percent in the
through lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach to Airport
Boulevard at a location with Base Case unacceptable Without OPSP 95th
percentile queuing greater than established standards. The through/right turn
lane queue would be extended from 415 1,906 to 447 2,024 feet at a location
with only 250 520 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.11 presents the results of the year 2040 queuing analysis. While this location would be
impacted by queues greater than available capacity during the PM peak hour with or without OPSP
development, when added to the current model, the 2011 OPSP would result in a decrease in queue
length compared to Without OPSP conditions, which would not be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-2819: Vehicle Queuing (see Figure 24 in Appendix E). The following improvement
would mitigate the OPSP-specific impact. This improvement is included in the
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the
OPSP’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Thru / Right Turn Lanes
AM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue = 242 feet, with a Base Case 95th
percentile queue of 250 feet.
PM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue = 506 feet, with a Base Case 95th
percentile queue of 524 feet. Each through lane queue = 280 feet, with a
Base Case 95th percentile queue of 415 feet.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-46 2017 OPSP UPDATE
AM & PM Peak Hours – All lanes with significant impacts would have
95th percentile queuing reduced to less than without OPSP conditions.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Oyster Point Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Airport Boulevard intersection is included in the
City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The OPSP will pay fees to fund planned
improvements to this intersection that would reduce vehicle queuing and reduce the OPSP’s impact to a
level of less-than-significant.
More Significant Conclusion (LTS conclusion changed to LTS with MM): The 2011 EIR did not
identify a significant impact at this intersection. Due to the updated modeling, which forecasts changes
in the projected background 2040 traffic levels at this intersection, this intersection would experience
an impact under either the 2011 OPSP or with the 2017 OPSP Update, though delay would be
marginally lower under the 2017 OPSP Update. The following impact and mitigation measure have
been added and the significance conclusion revised.
New Impact Traf-20: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp or approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an
off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2040 Without OPSP volumes.
South Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 12.5 percent in the left
turn lane on the S. Airport Boulevard eastbound approach to Gateway
Boulevard and increase the 95th percentile queue from 195 up to about 245
feet with only 170 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.11 presents the results of the year 2040 queuing analysis. While this location was not
assessed for a queuing impact in the 2011 EIR, under the current model, the 2011 OPSP would also
produce a substantially similar significant impact for this movement for this peak period (with queues
up to 250 feet compared to 245 with the 2017 OPSP Update).
Mitigation Measure
New Traf-20: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. The following improvements would
mitigate the OPSP impact. These improvements are included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the OPSP’s traffic
impact fee contribution to this program.
South Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
o Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – S. Airport Boulevard eastbound
left turn lane.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-47
AM Peak Hour: The eastbound left turn lane would have a resultant 95th
percentile queue demand of 216 feet, which would be less than without
OPSP operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The South Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue On-Ramp intersection is
included in the City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The OPSP will pay fees to
fund planned improvements to this intersection that would reduce vehicle queuing and reduce the
OPSP’s impact to a level of less-than-significant.
No CEQA Conclusions: Because the traffic model and 2040 background conditions were updated, this
analysis includes modeling of the 2011 OPSP under the current 2040 model, which allows for a direct
comparison between the potential impact of the 2011 OPSP and the changes proposed with the 2017
OPSP Update. Such an analysis is not the basis for CEQA impacts, but is provided for comparison
only. In addition to the revisions to impacts discussed above, the following intersections would
experience significant 95th percentile queuing impacts with the 2011 OPSP, but not the 2017 OPSP
Update as follows:
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue – AM peak hour
E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard – AM peak hour
S. Airport Boulevard / U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane – AM peak hour
YEAR 2040 FREEWAY MAINLINE AND ON/OFF-RAMP OPERATION
Less Significant Conclusion (SU conclusion changed to LTS): Due to changes in capacity as well as
changes in the projected circulation system and patterns, three on/off-ramp locations that were
previously determined to be impacted by the OPSP in the 2011 EIR have been modeled for this SEIR to
be operating under acceptable conditions both with and without addition of OPSP traffic to the existing
condition. Therefore, impacts and mitigation measures Traf-32 (related to the U.S. 101 Northbound
Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave / Executive Drive), Traf-33 (related to the U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard), and Traf-36 (related to the U.S. 101
Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue) have been deleted and replaced with the less-than-
significant revised impact Traf-21.
Revised Impact Traf-21: On- and Off-Ramp Operation. Other than as indicated in Traf-22, no on-
or off-ramp would receive a significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic
to 2040 Without OPSP volumes.
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
Tables 16.7 and 16.8 present the results of the off-ramp and on-ramp operation analysis. This less-
than-significant impact replaces 2011 EIR impacts and MMs Traf-32, Traf-33, Traf-34, and Traf-36.
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains SU): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following 2011 EIR significance conclusion as the impact of 2017 OPSP Update traffic on
the northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue operation would remain
substantially the same as analyzed in the 2011 EIR. The specifics of the impact and mitigation measure
have been revised consistent with updated modeling.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-48 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Revised Impact Traf-3522: On-Ramp Operation. The analysis concluded that there would be a
significant impact at the Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case 2040
Without OPSP volumes (see Table 16.7). PM peak hour volumes would be
increased by 17.0 about 4.8 percent (from 2,190 2,482 up to 2,563 2,602 vehicles
per hour) at a location where Base Case Without OPSP volumes would already be
just less greater than the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.8 presents the results of the on-ramp operations analysis. While this location would be
impacted by queues greater than available capacity with or without OPSP development, when added to
the current model, the 2011 OPSP would contribute a 3.3% increase in volumes at this on-ramp, which
would also be a significant impact. The 2011 OPSP would also contribute significantly to impacts to
the southbound off-ramp to the Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway intersection and the northbound off-
ramp to the S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor intersection, which are not significant impacts with the
2017 OPSP Update.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-3522: Improvement to On-Ramp Capacity Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue (see Figure 24 in Appendix E). Provision
of a second on-ramp lane would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles
per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is
currently not included in the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards this measure. It should be noted that because the
improvement is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as
lead agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be
implemented. While it is likely possible that Caltrans will implement the measure,
thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is
beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable. There are no other physical
improvements possible acceptable to Caltrans to accommodate a Base Case 2040
With OPSP volume of about 2,563 2,602 vehicles per hour.
Impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Same Conclusion, Revised Statements (conclusion remains SU): The 2017 OPSP Update would not
change the following 2011 EIR significance conclusion as 2017 OPSP Update traffic would continue to
have a significant impact on the freeway mainline. The specifics of the impact and mitigation measure
have been revised consistent with updated modeling. While conclusions remain substantially the same
as analyzed in the 2011 EIR, note that with the changes to the development proposed under the 2017
OPSP Update, the 2017 OPSP Update would have a significant impact during the PM peak hour only
whereas the 2011 OPSP would have a significant impact during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Revised Impact Traf-3723: Freeway Mainline Operation. One No U.S.101 mainline segment would
receive a significant impact during the AM peak hour due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case 2040 Without OPSP volumes, while one segment
would receive a significant impact during the PM peak hour (see Table 16.18).
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 16-49
• U.S.101 South Northbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange)
AM PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 3.6 1.3 percent (from
9,698 up to 10,047 11,634 up to 11,787 vehicles per hour) at a location with
unacceptable LOS F year 2035 Base Case 2040 Without OPSP operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Table 16.12 presents the results of the freeway mainline operations analysis. The 2011 OPSP also
results in significant impacts to U.S. 101. At this location it would also be a 1.3% contribution to
volumes in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour, while during the AM peak hour it would
be a 1.3% contribution to volumes in the southbound direction north of Oyster Point Boulevard, where
there would also be unacceptable operation.
Mitigation Measure
Revised Traf-3723: Improvement to Freeway Mainline. Mitigation of this impact would require
widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location
of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, such
mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively
expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Given these
specific concerns, mitigation of this Iimpact 14A is not feasible as defined by
CEQA.
Impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 defining “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished…taking into
account economic…and technological factors.” Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation
to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project.
See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d). Where economic
concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure.
(See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-50 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page has been intentionally left blank
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 17-1
17
UTILITIES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes existing public utilities on and in the vicinity of the 2017 OPSP Update and
evaluates the impact of the proposed 2017 OPSP Update on the provision of public utilities and
possible adverse physical impacts to the environment that could result from constructing expanded
facilities.
This chapter is based on a Municipal Services Assessment prepared for the City by Michael Baker
International, dated November 2017, the full text of which is included in Appendix I, and the SB 610
Water Supply Assessment prepared by California Water Service Company, dated August 1, 2017,
included in Appendix K (WSA).
REGULATORY SETTING
There have been no changes to the utilities regulatory setting of the OSPS area, including the OPSP
Update area. The full regulatory setting information is included in the 2011 EIR (Appendix B).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
WATER SYSTEM
The water system in the East of 101 area is owned and operated by the California Water Service
Company (Cal Water). The Cal Water “South San Francisco District” is located in northern San Mateo
County approximately six miles south of the City of San Francisco and serves the communities of
South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo
County known as Broadmoor, which lies between Colma and Daly City. The District’s overall water
system includes 144 miles of pipeline, 12 storage tanks, 21 booster pumps, and 5 groundwater wells.
Potable water supply for the District is a combination of purchased water and groundwater from Cal
Water owned wells. Water is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).
Cal Water’s annual allocation of SFPUC supply is shared among its three peninsula districts: Bear
Gulch, Mid-Peninsula, and South San Francisco. Annual supply from SFPUC to its utility customers
varies with precipitation and related hydrologic conditions.
Purchased SFPUC potable supply is delivered through a network of pipelines, tunnels and treatment
plants. This supply is predominantly from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, but also includes water produced
from watersheds, reservoirs and treatment facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.
Groundwater has historically supplied ten to fifteen percent of the South San Francisco District water
demand. It is extracted from the Merced Formation of the Colma Creek Basin, a sub-basin of the
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Merced Valley Groundwater Basin. Locally this basin is referred to as the Westside Basin. Cal Water
routinely monitors the groundwater level of its wells in the Westside basin. Cal Water intends to limit
its planned production of groundwater from the Westside Basin to 1,535 AF per year, which is
consistent with current pumping capacity and historical pumping rates.
There are currently no plans for recycled water or desalinated water supplies to be available to the
OPSP area.
Total system demand in 2015 was 7,064 acre-feet (AF). District water use in 2015 was strongly
affected by the Drought Emergency Regulation adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in
May of 2015. Between June and December 2015, water use in South San Francisco decreased by
21.7% compared to 2013. The projected average annual growth rate in services across all customer
categories is approximately 0.5 percent, with a projected total system demand of 8,901 AF in 2040.
The distribution system of the South San Francisco District is upgraded and improved through Cal
Water’s main replacement program. Storage facilities and new booster pumps are added as needed to
meet the average day and maximum day requirements. Future capital expenditures are planned for
drilling and developing new wells to replace aging wells currently in operation, which will increase
system reliability and allow Cal Water to pump its full share of sustainable extracted groundwater from
the Westside basin. Cal Water’s South San Francisco District Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan
will be updated in the next two years.
Existing OPSP Area Water System
The OPSP area is supplied from a 16-inch diameter water main in Oyster Point Boulevard. From there,
12-inch mains in Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard and 8-inch pipes along the north side
of the waterfront serve the various portions of the OPSP area. (Figure 3 in Appendix I illustrates the
water distribution system.)
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
The City of South San Francisco maintains all of its sewer system facilities and infrastructure in
accordance with the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) per Waste Discharge Requirements
Order No. 2006-003 DWQ, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board, and Order No. WQ
2013-0058-EXEC for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements and Sanitary Systems. The
current plan is dated June 2014 and is regularly updated in accordance with regulatory requirements.
All wastewater from the City of South San Francisco is conveyed to the Water Quality Control Plan
(WQCP), which is located at 195 Belle Air Road in South San Francisco. The WQCP is operated and
maintained by the City and serves a population of approximately 110,500. The WQCP provides
primary and secondary wastewater treatment for the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, the
Town of Colma, and portions of the City of Daly City.
The Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno and the North Bayside System Unit discharge
wastewater collected by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno that is then treated at the
WQCP, as well as treated wastewater from the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae and San Francisco
International Airport (SFO). The combined treated, dechlorinated wastewater is discharged to lower
San Francisco Bay through a single pipe to the deep water outfall approximately 1 mile northeast of
San Bruno Point.
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 17-3
The WQCP design capacity for average dry weather flow is 13 million gallons per day (mgd). The City
of South San Francisco is entitled to approximately 74 percent of the available treatment capacity of the
WQCP. In 2016, average daily flows were 8.27 mgd for South San Francisco and San Bruno combined.
Average dry weather flows for 2040 are projected to be 10.3 mgd.
The City’s wastewater collection system in the East of 101 area consists of 6-inch through 30-inch
diameter sewers and a series of gravity sewers and pump stations that convey flow to the main pump
station (Pump Station No 4); Pump Station No. 7 conveys a small portion of the East of 101 area to the
WQCP as well (see Figure 4 in Appendix I).
The City of South San Francisco Adopted Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) –
Sanitary Sewer Projects, Fiscal Year 2016–17, identifies 11 new proposed projects and the continuation
of 7 ongoing projects. There are no 2016–17 CIP sanitary sewer projects within the OPSP planning
area; however, the proposed off-site Pump Station No. 2 Upgrade will increase the current pump
station’s firm capacity, which would accommodate build-out of the OPSP area as well as other area
growth. All ongoing projects may indirectly benefit the OPSP because they also maintain and improve
the WQCP.
Existing OPSP Area Wastewater System
Pump Station No. 1 is located within the OPSP area and conveys wastewater flow through a 12-inch
force main. The 12-inch force main connects to an 8-inch pipeline segment near the intersection of
Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive. As proposed in the 2011 OPSP and unchanged in the 2017
OPSP Update, roadway realignment will be completed of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards.
Because of the realignment, Pump Station No. 1 will be abandoned and a new pump station will be
constructed within the OPSP area. This pump station will include three wet-well submersible pumps,
and a new 8-inch diameter force main will connect to the existing 8-inch gravity segment located near
the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
The City of South San Francisco operates and maintains the stormwater drainage system that serves the
OPSP area. The existing stormwater drainage system consists of approximately 13,220 linear feet of
stormwater drainage pipes, 88 stormwater drainage inlets, and 11 stormwater manholes. The system
contains various disconnected drainage networks that discharge directly to San Francisco Bay through
at least 16 outfalls and one channel.
Existing OPSP Area Storm Drainage System
The quantity of storm runoff during rainfall events is affected by the percentage of impervious surfaces
versus pervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces, such as pavement and buildings, cause more runoff than
pervious surfaces such as landscaped areas. The existing impervious area covers approximately 50
percent of the existing OPSP area. (Figure 5 in Appendix I illustrates the storm drainage facilities in the
area.)
SOLID WASTE
The South San Francisco Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of South San Francisco as the
sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the city. The Scavenger Company
transports all solid waste from the study area to the Blue Line Material Recovery Facility/Transfer Site
(MRF/TS). The MRF/TS has a permitted tonnage of 2,000 tons per day and operates an anaerobic
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
digestion and compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility. The system transforms food and green
waste into clean renewable CNG fuel for its vehicles and compost. In 2015, the facility separated out
55,565 tons of material for recycling or composting for use as biomass.
Once the usable materials have been separated at the MRF/TS, the remaining solid waste is then
transported to a landfill. In 2015, solid waste generated in South San Francisco and disposed of in
landfills totaled approximately 96,600 tons. Of that amount, almost 98 percent was transported to two
landfills: Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill in Half Moon Bay, which received
over 81,000 tons from South San Francisco in 2015, and Newby Island Sanitary Landfill.
Ox Mountain is permitted by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to
receive 3,598 tons per day of waste, with a total maximum permitted capacity of 69 million cubic
yards. In 2016, the landfill received, on average, between 1,500 and 2,000 tons per day. As of 2015, the
landfill’s remaining capacity was 22.18 million cubic yards. Although the existing permit expires in
2018, this expiration does not indicate the landfill would close and would no longer accept waste after
2018. Solid waste facility permits are periodically renewed, which includes estimates of remaining
capacity and landfill life. The Ox Mountain permit is undergoing such review, but it has not yet been
completed. New estimates for capacity and potential closure date will be indicated in the revised
permit.
The Newby Island Landfill, which is located in Santa Clara County, is permitted to accept 4,000 tons
per day of waste and has a permitted capacity of 57,500,000 cubic yards, with an estimated remaining
capacity of 21,200,000 cubic yards. The estimated closure date for the Newby Island Landfill is 2041.
California Assembly Bill (AB) 341 requires businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of waste per
week to recycle. The law also applies to multi-family dwellings of five units or more, regardless of the
amount of waste generated. AB 1826 requires all businesses and multi-family dwellings of five units or
more to subscribe to organics recycling service. The City of South San Francisco has implemented
these requirements through programs run by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company.
In 2015, the latest year for which data are available, the average per capita residential disposal rate in
South San Francisco was 6.9 pounds per day, which meets South San Francisco’s target identified by
CalRecycle of 6.9 pounds per day. For the employment sector, the average disposal rate was 9.3
pounds per employee, which did not meet the 9.0 pounds per day per employee target.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project’s environmental impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines:
1. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
2. Would the project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City’s water or wastewater
treatment and collection facilities?
3. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities?
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 17-5
4. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
5. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
6. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
7. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
WATER SUPPLIES AND SYSTEM
Same Conclusion, Revised Statement (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would
marginally increase the demand for water supply and system capacity, and would require revisions to
the impact statement to reflect current studies, but would not change the following impact or less-than-
significant conclusion as the site could be served with available supply and existing facilities, assuming
adequate on-site improvements.
Revised Impact Util-1: Increased Water Demand. Build-out of the OPSP area would increase water
demand and use of the local water system. However, according to the Water
Supply Assessment and Utilities Study Municipal Services Assessment, there is
sufficient water supply through the year 20302040, including the increased
demand from the OPSP, and adequate water system capacity assuming adequate
on-site improvements. This is a less-than-significant impact.
The Water Supply Assessment (Appendix K) estimated water demand increases from build-out of the
OPSP area, including the 2017 OPSP Update, of 245.5 AF per year (this increase is 22.4 AF per year
less than what would result under the 2011 OPSP) and concluded that, with respect to the 20 year
forecast, OPSP demand is not a significant percentage in the projected increase in District demand and
therefore increases in water demand due to the OPSP can be treated as part of the District demand
projection. For 2020, OPSP development and increased water demand would leave 83.6% of the
projected increase for other projects and general growth within the District. For 2040, it would leave
86.6% for other projects and general growth.
Cal Water’s Water Supply Assessment further concludes that for at least the planning horizon (next 20
years), its South San Francisco District will be able to provide adequate water supplies to meet existing
and projected customer demands, which includes full development of the proposed OPSP, including
the 2017 OPSP Update for normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions.
Sizing of water lines serving the 2017 OPSP Update area will be finalized in coordination with Cal
Water and the City. It is expected that a 12 to 16 inch water main will be installed as part of the
infrastructure improvements with development.
Therefore, the impact of increased water demand on water supply and system capacity will be less than
significant.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
WASTEWATER
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS with MM): The 2017 OPSP Update would marginally
increase the demand for wastewater treatment and system capacity, but would not change Impact Util-
2 and mitigation measures Util-2a and Util-2b, or the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential
need for sewer system upgrades has not changed since the 2011 OPSP.
The Municipal Services Assessment analyzed the OPSP’s impact on wastewater including calculation
of revised estimates for existing and projected flows. The OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP Update,
would result in the addition of approximately 0.5 mgd average dry weather flows, which is
approximately 0.15 mgd above that estimated for the 2011 OPSP.
OPSP-Proposed Improvements
As proposed in the 2011 OPSP and unchanged in the 2017 OPSP Update, roadway realignment will be
completed of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards that will require abandonment and reconstruction in
a new location of Pump Station No. 1, as shown in Figure 7 of Appendix I.
The new Pump Station No. 1 will need to serve an ultimate average daily flow of 629,000 gpd. The
estimated peak wet weather flow rate is calculated to be 812 gallons per minute. This sizing of Pump
Station No. 1 has been incorporated into plans for development projects in the OPSP area.
Future developments on the eastern portion of the OPSP area, including the proposed future hotel, will
drain to new gravity sewers and an upsized pump station (not yet numbered), as shown in Figure 7 of
Appendix I.
Off-Site Pump Station No. 2
The Pump Station No. 2 upsizing and improvements included in the current city CIP would
accommodate build-out of the OPSP area as well as other area growth. While inclusion in the CIP
means this improvement can be reasonably assumed, because the improvements have not yet been
made, the following mitigation measure has been retained.
With the expansion of Pump Station No. 2 included in CIP, as detailed in Mitigation Measure Util-2a,
impacts related to pump station capacity would be reduced to less than significant.
Sewer Trunk Capacity
While the 2017 OPSP Update would result in marginally increased wastewater flows, there would be
no change in requirements for update or conclusions related to sewer trunk capacity. The following
mitigation measure would remain applicable to the OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP Update.
With improvements identified in Mitigation Measure Util-2b, impacts related to sewer trunk capacity
would be reduced to less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would marginally increase the
demand for wastewater treatment, but would not change Impact Util-3 or the less-than-significant
conclusion as the site could be served with planned capacity.
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 17-7
The Municipal Services Assessment (Appendix I) analyzed the OPSP’s impact on wastewater
including calculation of revised estimates for existing and projected flows. The OPSP, including the
2017 OPSP Update, would result in the addition of approximately 0.5 mgd average dry weather flows,
which is approximately 0.15 mgd above that estimated for the 2011 OPSP.
The permitted average dry weather flow design capacity of the WQCP is 13 mgd and in 2016, average
daily influent flows were 8.27 mgd and are projected to be 10.3 mgd in 2040. Addition of OPSP
wastewater (0.5 mgd), when added to current flows, would not exceed the permitted capacity at the
WQCP, and the increased flows from the OPSP will have a less than significant impact on the WQCP.
INCREASE IN STORMWATER FLOWS
Same Conclusion, Revised Statement (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would
marginally increase impervious area, and would require revisions to the impact statement to reflect
that, but would not change the following impact or significance conclusion as development would
remain subject to provisions requiring control of stormwater flows.
Revised Impact Util-4: Increased Impervious Area. OPSP area build-out will increase the
impervious area by two 2.9 acres, or 2.6 3.6 percent, which could result in
increased stormwater flows and/or runoff not meeting treatment requirements,
without appropriate on-site controls. However, the potential for increased flows
will be mitigated through required compliance with the NPDES permit process,
which will require such controls. Additionally, stormwater controls are proposed to
meet or exceed LEED standards. The OPSP would not require additional off-site
storm water facilities or fail to meet treatment requirements. This is a less-than-
significant impact.
The Municipal Services Assessment (Appendix I) analyzed the OPSP’s impact related to stormwater
including. The volume of stormwater is directly related to the amount of impervious area within a
development. The OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP Update, would result in an additional
approximately 2.9 acres of new impervious surface, which is approximately 0.8 acre above that
estimated for the 2011 OPSP. This increase in impervious area would have a minimal, if any, effect on
stormwater discharges to the existing storm drainage system because stormwater runoff increases must
be managed in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) and low impact development (LID)
per the requirements of Provision C.3 of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit. No improvements to
expand capacity of the drainage system are recommended.
There is no substantial difference between the 2011 OPSP and the proposed 2017 OPSP Update
relative to stormwater runoff. All new infrastructure and existing infrastructure improvements will
require implementation of BMPs and LID per the requirements of Provision C.3 of the current NPDES
permit.
LANDFILL CAPACITY
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would marginally increase the
amount of expected solid waste generation but would not change Impact Util-5 or the less-than-
significant conclusion as the site would be adequately served by existing facilities and comply with
applicable solid waste regulations.
The Municipal Services Assessment analyzed the OPSP’s impact on solid waste. The OPSP, including
the 2017 OPSP Update, would generate approximately 10,075 tons per year of solid waste requiring
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
landfill disposal (which would be expected to equate to 13,434 cubic yards of compacted waste
annually), accounting for materials diverted and recycled from the waste stream. This is approximately
2,839 tons per year more solid waste than would have been generated under the 2011 OPSP.
Development projects in the OPSP area would comply with all regulatory requirements including
requirements for recycling and waste diversion.
The remaining landfill capacity at the Ox Mountain Landfill is 22.18 million cubic yards. The OPSP’s
contribution of approximately 13,434 cubic yards of compacted waste annually would decrease landfill
capacity by less than 0.1 percent and therefore would not substantially affect landfill capacity.
Therefore, the impact of the OPSP, including the 2017 OPSP Update, related to solid waste would be
less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
ENERGY
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would marginally increase the
amount of energy consumption but would not change the Impact Util-6 or the less-than-significant
conclusion as development would comply with applicable energy efficiency regulations.
The OPSP would be considered to have a significant impact related to energy use if it would violate
applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards and/or if energy
consumption increases resulting from the OPSP would trigger the need or expanded off-site energy
facilities.
The 2017 OPSP Update would be required by the City to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations and the new California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN),
as applicable, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. PG&E
infrastructure exists on the 2017 OPSP Update site, and any improvements and extensions required to
accommodate the OPSP would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior to installation. As a
result, although the OPSP would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not result in a
significant impact related to the provision of energy services.
CUMULATIVE UTILITIES IMPACTS
Same Conclusion (conclusion remains LTS): The 2017 OPSP Update would not change the following
les-than-significant conclusion as plan-specific impacts also remain the same as under the 2011 OPSP.
The geographic context for a discussion of cumulative impacts to utilities is the service area of the
utility in question. For instance, the geographic context for cumulative impacts to water supply is the
Cal Water and SFPUC service areas; to wastewater, it is the East of 101 Area; and to the storm
drainage system, the geographic context is the local watershed. The cumulative impacts analysis for
each utility includes all cumulative growth within its respective service area, as identified by the
providers’ demand projections.
The surplus SFPUC supply identified under the analysis above takes into account assumed cumulative
increases in system-wide water demand and would accommodate anticipated development in the area
including the OPSP. This assumes increased demand management and/or conservation system-wide
over time. The cumulative impact related to water supply would be less-than significant.
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for
industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Stormwater point and non-point
source discharges are a major source of pollution in San Francisco Bay from the City, as the City’s
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 17-9
storm drainage system discharges to the Bay. As redevelopment in the East of 101 Area continues,
development could degrade water quality through industrial/R&D pollutant discharges or simply as a
result of increased traffic.
To combat this problem, the San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP)
has prepared a Best Management Practices plan to control pollutants in their stormwater system.
Compliance with the permit requirements for non-point source stormwater discharge under the NPDES
also requires the property owner of all construction projects over one acre in size to obtain a
stormwater discharge permit. The storm water system consists of a variety of disconnected drainage
systems, including surface street drainage, and underground storm drains that drain to numerous
outfalls that discharge to the San Francisco Bay (Bay) along the north, west, and eastern sides of Oyster
Point. Stormwater flow from the outfalls is not treated. The developer has proposed to connect to the
existing underground drainage network at several locations, and the existing outfalls will continue to be
used with modifications to comply with BMPs. According to the OPSP, stormwater treatment and
controls will be designed in conformance with the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and LID
practices such as vegetated swales, vegetative buffer strips, media filters, and bioretention areas per the
requirements of Provision C3 of the City’s NPDES permit.
Cumulative impact and redevelopment may result in a significant increase of pollutant load in the
runoff. The proposed project represents 85 acres or approximately 5 percent of the 1,700 acres in the
East of 101 Area. Therefore, the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.
Additionally, compliance with NPDES will ensure project-specific and cumulative impacts will be
further reduced.
Planned and proposed sewer system upgrades, including those required by mitigation in this analysis,
will adequately accommodate OPSP development and cumulative area growth and the impact to the
wastewater system capacity is less than significant.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 18-1
18
OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the SEIR contains discussion of the following additional CEQA considerations:
• Significant Irreversible Modifications in the Environment
• Growth Inducing Impacts
• Cumulative Impacts
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE MODIFICATIONS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by a
project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or
growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The CEQA
Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use
which would commit future generations to specific uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental
actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources.
CHANGES IN LAND USE WHICH WOULD COMMIT FUTURE GENERATIONS
The 2017 OPSP Update would modify the mix of land uses in the 2017 OPSP Update area, including a
change in use to residential on the Phase III and IV portions of the site. Once developed as residential,
such land use would likely remain in the future.
Residents are considered sensitive receptors for a number of environmental impacts, including those
related to air quality, hazards, and noise; and once developed as residential use, any future surrounding
development would need to consider the potential for impacts on those sensitive receptors. However, as
discussed in this SEIR, the OPSP area already includes residents on live-aboard boats and recreational
areas that are considered to have sensitive receptors, so such a need to consider impacts on sensitive
receptors would not be an entirely new constraint related to the site.
IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS
The 2011 OPSP, with or without the 2017 OPSP Update, represents redevelopment of an urban site and
would not result in a loss of natural lands. Development of the 2017 OPSP Update as proposed could
result in the commitment of nonrenewable resources (e.g., gravel and petroleum products) and slowly
renewable resources (e.g., wood products) used in construction. However, the resource consumption
for construction activities would not result in long-term ongoing depletion of non-renewable resources
and would not permanently increase reliance on resources that are not renewable.
The operation of residences and office/R&D at the site (or just office/R&D under the 2011 OPSP)
would also require further commitment of resources (e.g., petroleum products for vehicle operations,
natural gas and electricity for lighting, heating, and cooling). The use of nonrenewable resources for
operation would be consistent with the use of such resources by other residential and office/R&D
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 18-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
development and is expected to account for a minimal portion of the region’s resources and would not
substantially affect the availability of these resources for other needs within the region.
Although the 2011 OPSP, with or without the 2017 OPSP Update, would result in the irreversible
commitment of resources, the impact would not be significant, and the decision by the Lead Agency to
commit these resources would meet goals to allow for office/R&D development and to help meet
housing demand.
Without approval of the 2017 OPSP Update, the 2011 OPSP would remain in effect and the same or
similar commitment of resources described would occur regardless.
The 2017 OPSP Update has the potential to result in irreversible damage due to environmental
accidents involving use of hazardous material, however, the proposed land use change (residential)
does not have a high potential for significant hazardous material use, and the handling of such materials
at the residential and office/R&D developments will be done according to appropriate regulations,
which will minimize this potential (see Chapter 11: Hazards).
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The 2017 OPSP Update would directly increase population growth through addition of housing and
employment growth and indirectly increase housing demand through the development of office/R&D.
Indirect increases in population due to greater employment opportunities are discussed in more detail
under Population/Housing section in Chapter 15 and found to be less than significant.
The 2017 OPSP Update area is located at a terminus, with the Bay immediately adjacent to the north
and west sides, and in close proximity on the east sides, and it is therefore not anticipated that
infrastructure improvements for this area would be used to support substantial additional growth in
surrounding areas.
While the 2017 OPSP Update would introduce residential development to the East of 101 area, it
would not set a precedent for other sites that do not share the same characteristics. As well as being
somewhat uniquely located at a terminus, as discussed above, the OPSP site already supports sensitive
uses including residents on live-aboard boats and recreational areas, so introducing sensitive users to
the site would not be an entirely new constraint, as it may be for other sites in the East of 101 area. The
analysis in this SEIR determined that this particular site would be appropriate for residential uses in
relation to air quality, hazards, and noise.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which
is created as a result of the combination of the 2017 OPSP Update evaluated in the SEIR together with
other projects causing related impacts. “Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
The potential for cumulative impacts are discussed in the analysis chapters 4 through 17 of this
document. In summary, development of the 2017 OPSP Update site as proposed would contribute to a
cumulative increase in impacts in areas such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Geology and
Soils, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities. However, the 2017
OPSP Update’s contribution to these cumulative effects would be less-than-significant or would be
reduced to a level of less than cumulatively considerable through implementation of any project-
CHAPTER 18: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 18-3
specific mitigation measures for all except the following items, which would be significant and
unavoidable on a cumulative level.
• Noise: Noise generated by construction on the site would temporarily though substantially increase
cumulative noise levels at existing live-aboard boats in the vicinity of the site as well as at earlier
phases of proposed new residential units. As under the 2011 OPSP, this impact would be partially
reduced through implementation of construction noise control measures (Noise-5), but the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended period of time that adjacent
receivers could be exposed to construction noise though the noise increases would be both episodic
and temporary.
• Traffic: Significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts under the 2017 OPSP Update include
intersection level of service impacts, intersection queuing impacts, cumulative PM peak hour on-
ramp impacts, and freeway mainline impacts that had been identified under the 2011 EIR (Traf-13,
Traf-16, Traf-17, Traf-18, Traf-22), and one intersection level of service impact that had not been
identified under the 2011 EIR (Traf-14). Some significant and unavoidable impacts that had
previously been identified under the 2011 EIR were found to be less than significant under the new
modeling or reduced to that level through mitigation including AM peak hour impacts at off-ramps
and some PM peak hour impacts at on-ramps.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 18-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page has been intentionally left blank
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-1
19
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, 1970, as amended, Section
15126.6) require an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
project. The CEQA Guidelines also require that an EIR explain why specific project alternatives
considered at one time were rejected in favor of the proposed project. The selection of alternatives is to
be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and
informed public participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that
cannot be determined, or for which implementation would be remote and speculative.
The Guidelines also require that an EIR specifically evaluate a “no project” alternative within this
discussion and that an “environmentally superior” alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 [e]).
The alternatives addressed in this SEIR were selected based on the following factors:
1. The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic project objectives
2. The extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen any of the identified significant
environmental effects of the project (discussed in Chapters 4 through 18)
3. The potential feasibility of the alternative (as discussed in this Chapter)
4. The extent to which the alternative contributes to a “reasonable range” of alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice
This SEIR describes the proposed 2017 OPSP Update and analyzes reasonable alternatives that would
avoid, reduce, or minimize environmental impacts. Areas within the OPSP that are outside the 2017
OPSP Update area are unaffected by the update and remain as proposed under the 2011 OPSP and
analyzed in the 2011 EIR. The 2017 OPSP Update is fully described in Chapter 3 of this SEIR (Project
Description). The environmental consequences are addressed in Chapters 4 through 18 of this SEIR.
2017 OPSP UPDATE OBJECTIVES
CEQA requires the analysis of alternatives that would feasibly attain “most of the basic objectives of
the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.”1
Therefore, the stated objectives can be used as a metric against which an alternative can be measured
when determining overall feasibility.2 Additionally, CEQA requires the evaluation of a proposed
project to address only impacts to the physical environment; economic and social effects can be
analyzed only as one link in a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision (e.g., physical
1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (a)
2 Ibid., Section 15126.6 (a)
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
changes caused, in turn, buy economic and social changes).3 However, economic viability can be
considered when determining the feasibility of a project alternative.4
The following are applicant and city objectives that are fulfilled by the 2017 OPSP Update.
Alternatives will be evaluated in part based on their ability to meet these objectives:
1. Create a vibrant destination and a new gateway to the City of South San Francisco.
2. Reorganize the area into a better pattern of land uses that will benefit all of the community’s
stakeholders.
3. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan
designation as a site for business and technology park facilities.
4. Continue to develop the East of 101 area into a nationally recognized research and
development center that will attract other life science and high technology businesses.
5. Enhance availability of public open space and access to the Bay.
6. Provide flexible recreational amenities for public use.
7. Counteract the potential effects of sea level rise on the Project site.
8. Generate additional demand for the transit mode-shift opportunities inherent in proximity to the
ferry terminal.
9. Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco.
10. Generate net property tax and other fees from the development Project and enhance property
values.
11. Build a project that is viable in the East of 101 area based upon market conditions and
projected service requirements for the area.
12. Develop a project of high quality design as called for in the Design Element of the East of 101
area Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties.
13. Develop additional housing to help offset the jobs-housing imbalance.
2017 OPSP UPDATE IMPACTS
The 2017 OPSP Update would not result in significant impacts related to agricultural and forest
resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and
housing, public services, or recreation. Impacts associated with the following topics would be
significant without the implementation of mitigation measures, but would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in this SEIR are implemented.
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
3 Ibid., Section 15131.
4 Ibid., Section 15126.6(f)(1).
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-3
• Noise
• Transportation and Circulation
• Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the analysis contained in this SEIR, implementation of the 2017 OPSP Update would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to the following:
• Noise: Construction-period noise affecting sensitive receptors over a period of several months or
years.
• Traffic: Declines in intersection operation as well as the mainline U.S. 101.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the 2017 OPSP Update. A project
may have the potential to generate significant impacts, but changes to certain features may also afford
the opportunity to avoid or reduce such impacts. The following alternatives analysis compares the
potential significant environmental impacts of the alternatives with those of the 2017 OPSP Update for
each of the environmental topics analyzed in detail in Chapters 4 through 18 of the SEIR and discusses
feasibility of implementation, and ability to meet objectives.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives were evaluated. All of the alternatives are located on the OPSP site. Differences
between the alternatives focus on intensity of development. The three alternatives to be analyzed in
comparison to the 2017 OPSP Update are shown in Table 19.1 at the end of this chapter and are as
follows:
Update Alternative A: No Project/2011 OPSP. Update Alternative A is a “no project” alternative that
assumes the 2017 OPSP Update is not approved and therefore that the 2011 OPSP would remain in
place and development would occur according to the 2011 OPSP. The 2011 OPSP originally
envisioned a total of 1,750,000 square feet of private office/R&D development across Phases II, III,
and IV (the area subject to the 2017 OPSP Update), with approximately 500,000 to 700,000 square feet
of development in each phase.
This alternative satisfies the CEQA requirement to evaluate a “No Project” alternative, which means
“the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]).
Update Alternative B: Reduced Intensity (23% Reduction) Alternative. Update Alternative B
would allow redevelopment of the same OPSP site but with a 23% reduction in residential and
office/R&D development compared with the 2017 OPSP Update. Under this alternative, approximately
823,900 square feet of office/R&D and 917 residential units would be developed on Phases II, III, and
IV . As with the 2017 OPSP Update, the remainder of the OPSP would develop per the 2011 OPSP.
Update Alternative C: Reduced Intensity (35% Reduction) Alternative. Update Alternative C
would allow redevelopment of the same OPSP site but with a 35% reduction in residential and
office/R&D development compared with the 2017 OPSP Update. Under this alternative, approximately
695,500 square feet of office/R&D and 774 residential units would be developed on Phases II, III, and
IV. As with the 2017 OPSP Update, the remainder of the OPSP would develop per the 2011 OPSP.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-4 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify any
alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping
process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.
Given the fact that the project applicant owns this site and the nature of the project (an update to a
Specific Plan for a specific site), an off-site alternative was not considered.
The SEIR did not identify impacts related to specific locations on the site such that changing the
footprint of development could substantially change impacts. Therefore, reduction in the footprint of
development was not considered as an alternative.
Reduced intensity alternatives were chosen based on the ability to avoid one or more significant and
unavoidable impacts while maintaining a reasonably feasible level of development. Impacts that would
have required substantial reductions in intensity of development (such as some traffic impacts that
would require reductions of 80% or 90%) were considered to not be avoidable by a feasible alternative.
It is not possible to fully evaluate every possible alternative to a proposed project. Update Alternatives
A, B, and C satisfy the requirement to consider and discuss “a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6. As discussed in the descriptions above, these
alternatives were chosen as reasonable and potentially feasible alternatives at this site and no additional
alternatives were identified that would substantially contribute to a meaningful evaluation, analysis,
and environmental comparison of the project to possible alternatives.
UPDATE ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT/2011 OPSP ALTERNATIVE
Impact Summary
The No Project Alternative would result in the development of the OPSP area as approved in the 2011
OPSP and analyzed in the 2011 OPSP. The No Project Alternative would be considered to have no new
impacts under CEQA, as it has already been fully analyzed in the 2011 EIR and approved as the 2011
OPSP (see CEQA section 21166, CEQA Guidelines section 15162). That being said, the 2011 OPSP
would result in impacts that have been previously identified. These are outlined in full in the 2011 EIR
(included as Appendix B), detailed in the comparative Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 of this document, and
summarized in the comparative Table 19.1 at the end of this chapter.
With similar development area and size, and almost the same daily and 2-way peak hour traffic as
under the 2017 OPSP Update, operational impacts of Update Alternative A related to emissions and
noise would be substantially the same as under the 2017 OPSP Update. However, because the
directionality of traffic would change (with the 2011 OPSP generally following the employment base
of the East of 101 area with inbound trips in the AM peak hour and outbound trips in the PM peak hour
and the 2017 OPSP Update residential uses generally following the reverse pattern), specifics of traffic
impacts between Update Alternative A and the 2017 OPSP Update would be different with some
impacts being more significant under one and other impacts being more significant under the other.
While it is difficult to weight the importance of each specific impact, it can be stated that under the
2017 OPSP Update, by changing some traffic to a different directionality than that predominant in the
area would generally be considered beneficial from a traffic perspective.
Ability to Accomplish OPSP Objectives and Feasibility
By reverting to the development planned under the OPSP, the No Project Alternative would meet the
majority of the project objectives of the 2017 OPSP Update, which are largely the same as for the 2011
OPSP. This alternative would not include housing, however, and would not meet the following
additional objective of the 2017 OPSP Update:
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-5
• Develop additional housing to help offset the jobs-housing imbalance.
As the currently-approved plan for development of the area, this alternative is assumed to be feasible.
UPDATE ALTERNATIVE B: REDUCED INTENSITY (23% REDUCTION) ALTERNATIVE
Impact Summary
Reducing the intensity of development by 23% would primarily reduce impacts related to operational
vehicle trips and related emissions and noise. While full site preparation would still be required as the
footprint would not change, construction activities and related impacts, including emissions and noise,
would be marginally reduced.
Update Alternative B was chosen to avoid the project’s significant contribution to the impact on the
freeway mainline (Traf-23). At a reduction in development intensity of 23%, Alternative B would
avoid the project’s significant contribution to this impact. However, while this alternative would reduce
the contribution of the OPSP traffic below significance levels (being a contribution of 1% or more of
traffic along the freeway), the freeway mainline would operate at levels considered unacceptable with
or without contribution of OPSP traffic.
Air Quality
The reduced intensity of development under Update Alternative B would result in proportionally fewer
vehicle trips and reduced building square footage and related emissions and therefore a reduction of
about 23% in operational criteria pollutant emissions compared to the 2017 OPSP Update.
The 2017 OPSP Update was determined to result in a significant impact related to operational ROG
emissions that could be reduced through mitigation (Air-5). A reduction in development intensity of at
least 11%, which is met and exceeded by this alternative, would reduce this impact below significance
thresholds and thereby avoid the need for this mitigation.
Construction activities and related emissions would also be marginally reduced under Update
Alternative B, but conclusions and required mitigation would not change.
This alternative would introduce new sensitive receptors (residents) to the area, albeit fewer than under
the 2017 OPSP Update, but the health risk assessment prepared for this SEIR demonstrated that
operational health risks to any sensitive receptors in the 2017 OPSP Update area would be below
significance thresholds. The amount of residents proposed does not change these conclusions.
Noise
The reduced intensity of development under Update Alternative B would result in proportionally fewer
vehicle trips and activity at the site and therefore related noise levels, particularly additional traffic
noise. However, similar operational equipment, such as HVAC equipment and fans, would still be
anticipated and would need to be appropriately planned and constructed to avoid impacts to noise-
sensitive receptors (Noise-1b). Operational noise levels and related less than significant impacts would
be marginally reduced under Update Alternative B than under the 2017 OPSP Update but conclusions
would not change.
While the duration of the construction period would be expected to be somewhat reduced with less
square footage being built, Update Alternative B would still have a construction period spanning more
than a year and the potential impact to noise-sensitive receptors would remain significant and
unavoidable despite mitigation (Noise-5) as under the 2017 OPSP Update.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-6 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Transportation and Circulation
Update Alternative B would result in new vehicle trips in the vicinity, which, while about 23% less
than under the 2017 OPSP Update, would still result in an increase over the threshold of 100 new
vehicle trips, triggering the requirement of a TDM Plan (Traf-1). Similarly, appropriate pedestrian and
bicycle facilities would also be required (Traf-2 and Traf-3).
With the 23% reduction in traffic, Update Alternative B would reduce the contribution of traffic to the
impacted U.S. 101 mainline (Traf-23) below the 1% significance threshold, which would reduce this
impact to less than significant. However, note that while the project’s contribution would no longer be
considered significant, this freeway mainline would operate at unacceptable levels even without OPSP
development.
All other traffic-related impacts (Traf-4 through Traf-22) would also be marginally reduced but not to a
degree that would avoid other significant and unavoidable impacts.
Other Environmental Topic Areas
Because the same total area would be disturbed and developed under Update Alternative B as under the
2017 OPSP Update, all other impacts would remain the same or similar to those identified for the 2017
OPSP Update and the identified mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Ability to Accomplish 2017 OPSP Update Objectives and Feasibility
On balance, Update Alternative B would meet the project objectives of the 2017 OPSP Update;
however, by reducing the development intensity by 23%, it would meet the following objectives to a
lesser degree:
1. Update Alternative B would create a vibrant destination and a new gateway to the City of South
San Francisco.
2. Update Alternative B would reorganize the area into a better pattern of land uses that will benefit
all of the community’s stakeholders, though a lower intensity project would provide both less
housing and less employment opportunities.
3. Update Alternative B would provide quality research and development facilities, though less
square footage would be built under this alternative.
4. Update Alternative B would continue to develop the East of 101 area into a nationally recognized
research and development center, though less square footage would be built under this alternative.
5. Update Alternative B would enhance availability of public open space and access to the Bay the
same as under 2017 OPSP Update.
6. Update Alternative B would provide flexible recreational amenities for public use the same as
under the 2017 OPSP Update.
7. Update Alternative B would counteract the potential effects of sea level rise on the Project site the
same as under the 2017 OPSP Update.
8. Update Alternative B would generate additional demand for the transit mode-shift opportunities
inherent in proximity to the ferry terminal, though with less residential and office/R&D
development, would do so to a lesser degree than under the 2017 OPSP Update.
9. Update Alternative B would build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco,
though to a lesser degree with less office/R&D space.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-7
10. Update Alternative B would generate net property tax and other fees from the development
Project and enhance property values, though to a lesser degree with less development.
11. Update Alternative B would build a project that is viable in the East of 101 area based upon
market conditions and projected service requirements for the area the same as under the 2017
OPSP Update.
12. Update Alternative B would develop a project of high quality design as called for in the Design
Element of the East of 101 Area Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties the same as
under the 2017 OPSP Update.
13. Update Alternative B would develop additional housing to help offset the jobs-housing imbalance,
though to a lesser degree with less housing units.
While Update Alternative B would meet all project objectives, many of these would be met to a lesser
degree than under the 2017 OPSP Update. This analysis considers Update Alternative B to be
potentially feasible though an economic feasibility study would need to be completed to confirm
economic feasibility.
UPDATE ALTERNATIVE C: REDUCED INTENSITY (35% REDUCTION) ALTERNATIVE
Impact Summary
Reducing the intensity of development by 35% would primarily reduce impacts related to operational
vehicle trips and related emissions and noise. While full site preparation would still be required as the
footprint would not change, construction activities and related impacts, including emissions and noise,
would be marginally reduced.
Update Alternative C was chosen to avoid the project’s significant contribution to the impact at the
Forbes Boulevard and Gull Road intersection (Traf-14). At a reduction in development intensity of
35%, Alternative C would avoid the project’s significant contribution to this impact. However, while
this alternative would reduce the contribution of the OPSP traffic below significance levels (being a
contribution of 2% or more of traffic at the intersection), this intersection would operate at levels
considered unacceptable with or without contribution of OPSP traffic.
Air Quality
The reduced intensity of development under Update Alternative C would result in proportionally fewer
vehicle trips and reduced building square footage and related emissions and therefore a reduction of
about 23% in operational criteria pollutant emissions compared to the 2017 OPSP Update.
The 2017 OPSP Update was determined to result in a significant impact related to operational ROG
emissions that could be reduced through mitigation (Air-5). A reduction in development intensity of at
least 11%, which is met and exceeded by this alternative, would reduce this impact below significance
thresholds and thereby avoid the need for this mitigation.
Construction activities and related emissions would also be marginally reduced under Update
Alternative C, but conclusions and required mitigation would not change.
This alternative would introduce new sensitive receptors (residents) to the area, albeit fewer than under
the 2017 OPSP Update, but the health risk assessment prepared for this SEIR demonstrated that
operational health risks to any sensitive receptors in the 2017 OPSP Update area would be below
significance thresholds. The amount of residents proposed does not change these conclusions.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-8 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Noise
The reduced intensity of development under Update Alternative B would result in proportionally fewer
vehicle trips and activity at the site and therefore related noise levels, particularly additional traffic
noise. However, similar operational equipment, such as HVAC equipment and fans, would still be
anticipated and would need to be appropriately planned and constructed to avoid impacts to noise-
sensitive receptors (Noise-1b). Operational noise levels and related less than significant impacts would
be marginally reduced under Update Alternative C than under the 2017 OPSP Update but conclusions
would not change.
While the duration of the construction period would be expected to be somewhat reduced with less
square footage being built, Update Alternative C would still have a construction period spanning more
than a year and the potential impact to noise-sensitive receptors would remain significant and
unavoidable despite mitigation (Noise-5) as under the 2017 OPSP Update.
Transportation and Circulation
Update Alternative C would result in new vehicle trips in the vicinity, which, while about 35% less
than under the 2017 OPSP Update, would still result in an increase over the threshold of 100 new
vehicle trips, triggering the requirement of a TDM Plan (Traf-1). Similarly, appropriate pedestrian and
bicycle facilities would also be required (Traf-2 and Traf-3).
With the 35% reduction in traffic, Update Alternative C would reduce the contribution of traffic to the
impacted Forbes Boulevard and Gull Road intersection (Traf-14) below the 2% significance threshold,
which would reduce this impact to less than significant. However, note that while the project’s
contribution would no longer be considered significant, this intersection would operate at unacceptable
levels even without OPSP development.
As with Update Alternative B, Update Alternative C would also reduce the contribution of traffic to the
impacted U.S. 101 mainline (Traf-23) below the 1% significance threshold, which would reduce this
impact to less than significant. However, note that while the project’s contribution would no longer be
considered significant, this freeway mainline would operate at unacceptable levels even without OPSP
development.
All other traffic-related impacts (Traf-4 through Traf-22) would also be marginally reduced under
Update Alternative C but not to a degree that would avoid other significant and unavoidable impacts.
Other Environmental Topic Areas
Because the same total area would be disturbed and developed under Update Alternative C as under the
2017 OPSP Update, all other impacts would remain the same or similar to those identified for the 2017
OPSP Update and the identified mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Ability to Accomplish 2017 OPSP Update Objectives and Feasibility
On balance, Update Alternative C would meet the project objectives of the 2017 OPSP Update;
however, by reducing the development intensity by 35%, it would meet the following objectives to a
lesser degree:
1. Update Alternative C would create a vibrant destination and a new gateway to the City of South
San Francisco.
2. Update Alternative C would reorganize the area into a better pattern of land uses that will benefit
all of the community’s stakeholders, though a lower intensity project would provide both less
housing and less employment opportunities.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-9
3. Update Alternative C would provide quality research and development facilities, though less
square footage would be built under this alternative.
4. Update Alternative C would continue to develop the East of 101 area into a nationally recognized
research and development center, though less square footage would be built under this alternative.
5. Update Alternative C would enhance availability of public open space and access to the Bay the
same as under 2017 OPSP Update.
6. Update Alternative C would provide flexible recreational amenities for public use the same as
under the 2017 OPSP Update.
7. Update Alternative C would counteract the potential effects of sea level rise on the Project site the
same as under the 2017 OPSP Update.
8. Update Alternative C would generate additional demand for the transit mode-shift opportunities
inherent in proximity to the ferry terminal, though with less residential and office/R&D
development, would do so to a lesser degree than under the 2017 OPSP Update.
9. Update Alternative C would build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco,
though to a lesser degree with less office/R&D space.
10. Update Alternative C would generate net property tax and other fees from the development
Project and enhance property values, though to a lesser degree with less development.
11. Update Alternative C would build a project that is viable in the East of 101 area based upon
market conditions and projected service requirements for the area the same as under the 2017
OPSP Update.
12. Update Alternative C would develop a project of high quality design as called for in the Design
Element of the East of 101 Area Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties the same as
under the 2017 OPSP Update.
13. Update Alternative C would develop additional housing to help offset the jobs-housing imbalance,
though to a lesser degree with less housing units.
While Update Alternative C would meet all project objectives, many of these would be met to a lesser
degree than under the 2017 OPSP Update. This analysis considers Update Alternative C to be
potentially feasible, though an economic feasibility study would need to be completed to confirm
economic feasibility.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the 2017 OPSP Update and the alternatives,
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be
selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior
alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the
alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City.
Table 19.1 provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the alternatives compared
to the 2017 OPSP Update. The table lists the level of significance of the impacts of the 2017 OPSP
Update to each of the environmental topics areas analyzed in the SEIR and shows whether the impacts
anticipated under each proposed alternative would be significantly reduced or increased compared to
the 2017 OPSP Update or whether they would be similar to (“s”) the 2017 OPSP Update, with
potentially marginally greater (“+”) or lesser (“-“) impacts within the same significance conclusions.
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-10 2017 OPSP UPDATE
Update Alternative A, the No Project/2011 OPSP Alternative, assumes the 2017 OPSP Update is not
approved and the 2011 OPSP is developed. With the same development footprint, similar construction
activities, and almost the same overall traffic volumes as under the 2017 OPSP Update, many of the
impacts would be the same or similar under Update Alternative A. While Update Alternative A would
not introduce new residents to the area, emission and noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors on
live-aboard boats would still have substantially the same potential to occur. While overall traffic
volumes would be very similar, the directionality of the traffic would be different between the 2017
OPSP Update and Update Alternative A and the specifics of impacts would be different with some
impacts being more significant under one and other impacts being more significant under the other.
While it is difficult to weight the importance of each specific impact, it can be stated that changing
some traffic to a different directionality than that predominant in the area would generally be
considered beneficial from a traffic perspective, and therefore Update Alternative A would be
considered to have marginally worse traffic impacts. Update Alternative A would have substantially the
same impacts, with marginally more severe traffic impacts than the 2017 OPSP Update and therefore
would not be the environmentally superior alternative.
The other two alternatives, Update Alternatives B and C, would reduce the amount of development on
the site, resulting in roughly 23% or 35% less development and proportionally less traffic and
emissions than would have been generated under the 2017 OPSP Update, respectively. Focusing on
impacts that cannot be reduced below significance levels through implementation of identified
mitigation, Both Update Alternatives B and C would avoid one significant and unavoidable impact
related to the project contribution to impacted freeway mainline operation. Additionally, Update
Alternative C would also avoid one significant and unavoidable impact related to the project
contribution to impacted intersection operation at Forbes Boulevard and Gull Road. No other
significant and unavoidable impacts would be avoided or substantially changed by these alternatives.
Because Alternatives B and C both avoid at least one significant and unavoidable impact, these
alternatives would both be considered environmentally superior to the 2017 OPSP Update. With an
additional significant and unavoidable impact avoided, Alternative C would be environmentally
superior to both the 2017 OPSP Update and all other alternatives.
However, both of the significant and unavoidable impacts that are avoided by Alternatives B and/or C
occur at locations that would operate at unacceptable levels even without addition of any traffic from
the OPSP area. The reduction in traffic from the OPSP area would only reduce the contribution from
the OPSP area below the significance level of 1% for the freeway mainline and 2% for the local
intersection and would not result in the freeway mainline or that intersection operating within
acceptable levels.
While Update Alternatives B and C would meet all project objectives, many of these would be met to a
lesser degree than under the 2017 OPSP Update. This analysis considers Update Alternatives B and C
to be potentially feasible, though an economic feasibility study would need to be completed to confirm
economic feasibility.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-11
TABLE 19.1. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS, 2017 OPSP UPDATE AND ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
No Project/ 2011
OPSP
Reduced
Intensity (23%
Reduction)
Reduced
Intensity (35%
Reduction)
AESTHETICS
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
LTS s s s
Would the project substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
NI s s s
Would the project substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
NI s s s
Would the project create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
LTS with
MM
s s s
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES, MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project result in loss of or
conflict with zoning for agriculture
and forest resources?
NI s s s
Would the project result in loss of
availability of mineral resources?
NI s s s
AIR QUALITY
Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
LTS with
MM
s s s
Would the project violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
LTS with
MM
s LTS (reduced) LTS (reduced)
Would the project result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
LTS with
MM
s LTS (reduced) LTS (reduced)
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
PAGE 19-12 2017 OPSP UPDATE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Would the project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutants?
LTS s- s- s-
Would the project create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
LTS s s s
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on species
identified as candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Services?
LTS with
MM s s s
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game,
or the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
LTS with
MM s s s
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal
etc.), through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
LTS with
MM s s s
Would the project interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident
of migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
LTS with
MM s s s
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-13
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
Would the project conflict with local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
NI s s s
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical, archaeological,
paleontological, or tribal cultural
resource or disturb any human remains?
LTS with
MM s s s
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Faulting Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
LTS s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving exposure to strong
seismic ground shaking?
LTS with
MM s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving potential seismic ground
failure, including liquefaction,
densification, and differential settlement?
LTS with
MM s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving landslides?
NI s s s
Would the project be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or
that would become unstable as a result of
the project) and which could potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
LTS with
MM
s s s
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
PAGE 19-14 2017 OPSP UPDATE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving volcanic hazards;
NI s s s
Development located on expansive soil,
creating substantial risks to life and
property
LTS s s s
Would the project result in soil erosion? LTS with
MM s s s
Would the project be located in an area
where soils are incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternate waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
NI s s s
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
LTS s s- s-
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy
or regulation of an agency adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
NI s s s
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
LTS s s s
Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment?
LTS with
MM s s s
Would the project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
NI s s s
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-15
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
hazardous materials, substances or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Would the project be located on a site
which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
LTS s s s
Is the project located within an airport
land use plan area, would it result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
LTS s s s
Would the project impair implementation
of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
NI s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wild land fires,
including where wild lands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wild lands?
NI s s s
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project violate water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
LTS with
MM
s s s
Would the project substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table?
NI s s s
Would the project alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner,
which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
LTS with
MM
s s s
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
PAGE 19-16 2017 OPSP UPDATE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
Would the project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
NI s s s
Would the project place housing within a
]00-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map or place within a
100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
LTS with
MM
s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
LTS s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
LTS s s s
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project physically divide an
established community?
NI s s s
Would the project conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted with the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
LTS NI (reduced) s s
Would the project conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
LTS s s s
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-17
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
POPULATION AND HOUSING, PUBLIC SERVICES, RECREATION
Would the project induce population
growth?
NI s s s
Would the project result in the
displacement of housing or people?
LTS s s s
PUBLIC SERVICES, RECREATION
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts related to
facilities for public services?
LTS s s s
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts related to
facilities for recreation?
LTS s s s
NOISE
Would the project result in exposure of
persons to or generation of noise in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
LTS with
MM
s s- s-
Would the project cause a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
LTS s s- s-
Would the project result in substantial
temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity?
SU s s- s-
Would the project result in exposure of
persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
LTS s s s
Would the project result in exposure of
people residing or working at the project
site to excessive noise levels from a
project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public use
airport?
LTS s s s
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
PAGE 19-18 2017 OPSP UPDATE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
Would the project result in exposure of
people residing or working at the project
site to excessive noise levels from a
private airstrip?
NI s s s
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Would the project 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 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?
SU, LTS
with
MM, and
LTS
s+
Increased impact
at some locations,
decreased at
others, overall
marginally worse
due to the lack of
directional
diversity
s- One local SU
reduced to LTS,
otherwise:
s-
Would the project 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?
SU, LTS
with
MM, and
LTS
s+
Increased impact
at some locations,
decreased at
others, overall
marginally worse
due to the lack of
directional
diversity
One freeway SU
reduced to LTS,
otherwise:
s-
One freeway SU
reduced to LTS,
otherwise:
s-
Would the project substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature or
incompatible uses?
LTS s s s
Result in inadequate emergency access? LTS s s s
Would the project conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
LTS with
MM
s s s
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project create or contribute
runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
LTS s s s
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS with MM = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A change in the significance of an impact is indicated as
“(reduced)” or “(increased)”.
An “s” signifies the significance of an impact would be the
same or similar under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “-” (minus sign) signifies a marginal
reduction in the impact under the Alternative as compared
to the proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
Inclusion of a “+” (plus sign) signifies a marginal increase
in the impact under the Alternative as compared to the
proposed 2017 OPSP Update.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 19-19
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA 2017
OPSP
UPDATE
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
A
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
B
UPDATE
ALTERNATIVE
C
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Would the project require or result in the
construction of new water treatment,
distribution, or conveyance facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
LTS s s s
Would the project require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
LTS s s s
Would the project have insufficient water
supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
LTS s s s
Would the project result in a
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
LTS
with MM s s s
Would the project be served by a landfill
with insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
LTS s s s
Would the project comply with federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
LTS s s s
PAGE 19-20 2017 OPSP UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
2017 OPSP UPDATE PAGE 20-1
20
REPORT PREPARERS AND REFERENCES
REPORT PREPARERS
City of South San Francisco
This document was prepared through coordination with South San Francisco Senior Planner Billy
Gross.
Lamphier-Gregory
(Primary Report Preparers)
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Rebecca (Gorton) Auld, Senior Planner
Crane Transportation Group
(Transportation and Circulation)
Mark Crane, Principal
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 20-2 2017 OPSP UPDATE
REFERENCES
California Building Code, Title 24, 2014.
California Department of Transportation. Construction Site Monitoring Program Guidance Manual.
August, 2013.
California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CA, available at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/.
California Department of Water Resources. The National Flood Insurance Program in California.
Quick Guide Coastal Appendix: Planning for Sea-Level Rise. October, 2016.
California Geological Survey, “Earthquake zones of Required Investigation, San Francisco South
Quadrangle”, November 17, 2000.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November 2012, Exhibit
IV-5.
City of South San Francisco, “2010 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of South San Francisco
Annex”, June 29, 2011.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Letter of Map Revision. Case No. 17-09-1343A. April 19,
2017.
National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map. San Mateo County, California. Panel 42
OF 510. Effective Date October 16, 2012.
PMC, “City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan”, February 13, 2014.
State Water Resources Control Board. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Water Code
Division 7 and Related Sections, April 2017.
Tetra Tech. Technical Memorandum. Short-term Flood Protection Plan for Oyster Point Landfill.
February 24, 2016.