HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-1
13
Land Use and Planning
This chapter evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Project related to land use. This chapter
describes the existing land uses of the Project Area and its surroundings and evaluates the extent to which
the Project may affect land use. In particular, this chapter provides an assessment of the Project’s consistency
with the existing land use policy and regulatory framework applicable to the Project Area.
Setting information is derived from the following primary sources:
● the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco
● the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan
● the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Environs of San Francisco
International Airport (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November
2012)
● the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20: Zoning
● relevant land use planning principles and guidelines of the Genentech Campus Master Plan Update
Setting
Land Use in the Surrounding East of 101 Area
The City of South San Francisco is bisected by the US 101 freeway. South San Francisco’s downtown and
other commercial and residential areas are primarily on the west side of the freeway, and freeway
commercial, industrial and office land uses are primarily on the east side of the freeway. The east side of the
freeway is known as the East of 101 Area.
The central portion of the East of 101 Area is composed primarily of biotechnology-related building space.
Genentech is the largest biotechnology company in the area, but there are over 200 biotech companies and
approximately 11.5-million square feet of biotechnology building space within the approximately 500-acre
East of 101 Area.1 The growth of the biotechnology industry has significantly changed land use in the East of
101 Area, which had historically been an area of heavy industry, manufacturing facilities and warehousing.
Land uses in the East of 101 area are now principally modern, multi-story office and research and
development (R&D) buildings, mostly in campus-type settings.
The south and southwest portion of the East of 101 Area has not yet undergone such significant
transformation. This area still consists primarily of one and two-story industrial and light industrial buildings
and airport-serving land uses, including hotels and fast food restaurants.
The northerly portion of the East of 101 Area is known as Oyster Point. In 2011, the City approved the Oyster
Point Specific Plan, which calls for removal of an inn, office buildings, a yacht club and light industrial
1 http://www.ssf.net/our-city/biotech/biotech-in-ssf
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-2 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
buildings for redevelopment with up to 2.3 million square feet of office/R&D building space, accessory
commercial uses, public open space, recreational fields, marina improvements and a hotel. Phase 1 of the
Oyster Point Specific Plan is under construction.
Along the entire Bay shoreline of the East of 101 Area is a shoreline trail (the Bay Trail) and greenbelt, which
extends north and south along the Bay.
Land Use Characteristics of the Project Area
The Project Area is located within the East of 101 Area, at the furthest easterly point. The Project Area is
bordered by the San Francisco Bay to the north and east, and connected by Oyster Point Boulevard and East
Grand Avenue to US 101 to the west, and is roughly one mile north of the San Francisco International Airport
(SFO).
The Project Area is defined as the Genentech Campus, which had an existing 2017 baseline of approximately
4.7 million square feet of building space within its 207 acres, at a floor-area ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.52.
2Several clusters of office, laboratory, manufacturing, and research facilities exist within the Project Area, and
these building clusters are known as neighborhood campuses.
● The Lower Campus is located in the northerly portion of the Project Area along the Bay shoreline
south of Oyster Point, and contains a mix of manufacturing and warehouse buildings, offices and
laboratories, and structures containing the Project Area’s primary power and infrastructure facilities.
● The Mid Campus is also located along the Bay shoreline, but sits atop a bluff south of the Lower
Campus. The Mid Campus is composed almost exclusively of research and lab facilities, and its
existing buildings are grouped into multiple building clusters.
● The Upper Campus is the geographic center of the Project Area and occupies the highest point on
the hilltop. The Upper Campus is the center of the Genentech Campus and is composed almost
entirely of office and related employee amenity land uses.
● The West Campus begins at East Grand Avenue/Allerton Street and along the base of Point San
Bruno Hill. Existing building space within the West Campus includes mostly warehouse and
distribution space, generally only one or two stories in height.
● The South Campus fronts the San Francisco Bay and was originally designed and constructed as an
individual campus with a mix of office and laboratory space with centralized amenities and two
parking garages.
The distribution of building space by neighborhood campus location and use type is shown below in Table 13-
1.3
2 Per SSF municipal Code and East of 101 Area Plan, childcare facilities are not included in the FAR totals.
3 Genentech’s latest 2017 Annual Report shows a matching level of total Campus development, but because the Master Plan
Update re-organizes the boundaries of neighborhood campuses, the total by neighborhood campus shown in Table 3-1 vary
from that Annual Report.
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-3
Table 13-1: Baseline (2017) Building Space by Land Use Type
(building square feet)
Land Use Type:
Lower
Campus Mid Campus
Upper
Campus
West
Campus
South
Campus Total
Office 257,000 82,000 907,000 89,000 230,000 1,566,000
Lab Space / R&D 482,000 469,000 59,000 139,000 568,000 1,718,000
Manufacturing and
Distribution 487,000 34,000 764,000 1,285,000
Employee Amenity
Space 10,000 2,000 108,000 54,000 23,000 145,000
EIR Baseline, Total 1,237,000 554,000 1,107,000 1,046,000 821,000 4,766,0001
Changes During 2017/2018
Employee Center: 71,000
Demo (B54 and T06): -107,000
Child Care Center 73,000
New Building 40 170,000
As of beginning 2019: 1,237,000 554,000 1,179,000 1,012,000 991,000 4,973,000
Notes:
1. EIR baseline totals consistent with 2015/2016 Genentech Annual Report – but are not equal to FAR calculation. Pursuant to SSF
Municipal Code and East of 101 Area Plan, childcare facilities are exempt from FAR limitations
2. Baseline totals (pre-2017/2018 changes) are consistent with 2017 Genentech Annual Report
Land use types by building space within the Project Area is generally evenly split between lab space (36% of
total building space), office use (33% of total building space) and manufacturing/warehouse (27% of total
building space). Employee amenity spaces currently comprise approximately 3% of the total Campus building
space. As of the beginning of 2018, two additional buildings (the Employee Center on the Upper Campus, and
the Child Care Center in the West Campus) were constructed, and an additional building (Building 40 in the
South Campus) was under construction.
These existing land uses are consistent with other surrounding land uses within the East of 101 Area.
Project Consistency with Regulatory Setting
Land use policies, standards and regulations applicable to the Project Area are contained in the South San
Francisco General Plan, the East of 101 Area Plan, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Project
Area is also within the regulatory jurisdiction of other agencies. Along the Project Area’s shoreline, the Bay
Trail connects to the San Francisco Bay regional park system within the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission’s (BCDC) jurisdiction. The entire East of 101 area, including the Project Area, is within the SFO
Airport Influence Area (AIA) and subject to rules and regulations of the City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) to promote compatibility between SFO and surrounding land
uses. No natural community plan or habitat conservation plan is applicable to the Project Area.
Potential conflicts with the General Plan and other plans, policies and regulations do not inherently result in a
significant effect on the environment within the context of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b) states
that, “effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d)
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-4 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
further states that an EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and the applicable
general plan in the Environmental Setting section of the document, rather than as an impact. Further,
Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project would result in a
significant impact related to land use and planning if it would, “cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect” (emphasis added). Accordingly, this section of the EIR provides an
evaluation of the overall consistency of the Project with applicable plans, policies and regulations, but the
physical impacts that may result from any such conflicts are analyzed in the various impact sections of the
EIR.
Federal – City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for SFO (2012)
The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
(ALUCP) is used by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) to promote
compatibility between the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and surrounding land uses. The ALUCP
compatibility criteria, as derived from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are used to safeguard the
general welfare of the public.
The Project Area is entirely within the SFO Airport Influence Area (AIA) and as such, the compatibility criteria
contained within the ALUCP are applicable to land use plans and development within the Project Area. As
indicated below, the Project is consistent with the noise, land use safety and building height criteria of the
ALUCP, and would not conflict with plans and policies intended to protect and promote airport operations
safety and/or airspace protection.
Land Use Safety
The ALUCP defines five safety zones within its AIA, and land use compatibility standards are established to
restrict development of certain types of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to
vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident.
Consistency: As shown on Figure 13-1, none of the five safety zones associated with SFO apply to the
Project Area. Thus, the ALUCP’s criteria for land use safety do not apply to the Project, and the Project is
consistent with these criteria.
Noise
The ALUCP establishes boundaries within which noise compatibility policies apply. These boundaries depict
“noise impact areas” or noise compatibility zones, defined by noise contours at the 65 dB CNEL, 70 dB CNEL,
and 75 dB CNEL contours. Noise compatibility policies apply to each noise impact area or contour.
Commercial uses (e.g., offices and business) or industrial and manufacturing uses and related structures are
considered compatible without restrictions within all of these noise impact areas.
Consistency: As shown in Figure 13-1, the Project Area is not located within any of the ALUCP-identified
noise impact areas. Thus, the ALUCP land use noise exposure criteria do not apply to the Project (and
would not restrict the Project’s proposed land uses, even if they did apply) and the Project is consistent
with the ALUCP noise criteria.
Source: SFO ALUCP, Exhibits IV-4 and IV-6,
San Mateo C/CAG, 2012
Figure 13-1
SFO Safety and Noise Compatibility Zones -
Relationship to Project Area
B: Noise Compatibility Zones
A: Safety Compatibility Zones
380
101
101
101
82
ROLLINS RD
CALI
F
O
R
N
I
A
D
R
AIRPORT BLVD
SNEAT
H
L
N
MU R CHISON DR
HILLCREST B LV D
HELE
N
D
R S A
IRPORT
BLVDTROUSDALE DRBAYSHORE HWYADELINE DRL O M IT A AVES SPRUCE AVEHILLSIDE DRS
M
C
D
O
N
N
E
L
L
R
DS LINDEN AVEUTAH AVE
RAY DRD
W
I
G
H
T
R
D
JENEV
EI
N
A
V
E
OAK G
R
OVE AV
EMADISON A
VEMILLB
R
A
E
A
V
E
CRYS T A L SPRINGS RDE SAN BRUNO AVE
S
EBA
S
TIA
N DRPARK BLV D
BL
O
O
M
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
E MILL
B
R
A
E
AV
E
CARMELITA AVEMAGNOLIA AVE
N
H
U
M
B
O
L
D
T
S
TSAN MATEO AVEW O R A N G E A VEBROADWAYRICHM
O
N
D
D
R
TAYLOR BLVDP
O
P
L
A
R
A
V
E
WHITMAN WY
RID
G
E
WOOD
DREASTON DRL
A
U
R
E
L
A
V
E
C
R
E
S
TM
O
O
R DR
LARKSPUR D R
QU
E
S
A
D
A
W
Y
S
A
S
H
T
O
N
A
V
E
A
S
H
TO
N
A
V
E
W S A N BRUNO AVELITTLEFIELD AVEN
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
B
L
V
D
S
K
Y
L
I
N
E
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
DEL CAM
INO
REAL
H
U
N
T
D
R
OLD
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
B
L
V
D
MOSSWOO
D LN
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
M
A
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
ECRESTMOOR DR HUNT
INGTON
AVE
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
W SAN B
R
U
N
O
A
V
E
COYOTE POINT RECREATION AREA
BAYSIDE PARK
GREEN HILLS COUNTRY CLUB
POPLAR CREEK GOLF COURSE
JUNIPERO SERRA COUNTY PARK
SISTERS OF MERCY
MILLS HIGH SCHOOL
BAYFRONT PARK
PENINSULA HIGH SCHOOL
THE CROSSINGS
CAPUCHINO HIGH SCHOOL
MILLS CANYON PARK
PENINSULA HOSPITAL
WASHINGTON PARK
BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HIGH SCHOOL
CENTRAL PARK
SAN MATEO PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
PARKSIDE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
BURLINGAME INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
POINT SAN BRUNO
BELLE AIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CUERNAVACA PARK
MILLS ESTATE PARK
TAYLOR MIDDLE SCHOOL
PONDEROSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SPRING VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
GREEN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BRENTWOOD PARK
MEADOWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SAINT VERONICA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SAN MATEO HIGH SCHOOL
DECIMA M. ALLEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CRESTMOOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SHORELINE PARK
POINT SAN BRUNO PARK
HARBOR VIEW PARK
EL CRYSTAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PARK
LOMITA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
VICTORIA PARK
SAINT DUNSTANS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MCKINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLROOSEVELT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLBURLINGAME FIRE STATION 35 BURLINGAME CITY HALL
PARK
BURLINGAME FIRE STATION 34
OUR LADY OF ANGELS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ALPINE PARK
PALOMA PARK
MillbraeMillbrae
BurlingameBurlingame
San BrunoSan Bruno
South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco
San MateoSan Mateo
HillsboroughHillsborough
San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake
Exhibit IV-7
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Planfor the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES
NORTH
San FranciscoSan Francisco
BayBay
San FranciscoSan Francisco
International AirportInternational Airport
28L28R10L10R19L19R1
R
1
L
Elevation 13.2 FeetElevation 13.2 Feet
C/CAG
City/County Association of Governmentsof San Mateo County, California
11
LEGEND
1 - Runway Protection Zone-Object Free Area1 - Runway Protection Zone-Object Free Area
2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone
3 - Inner Turning Zone3 - Inner Turning Zone
4 - Outer Approach/Departure Zone4 - Outer Approach/Departure Zone
5 - Sideline Zonee5 - Sideline Zonee
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Place of Worship
BART Station
CALTRAIN Station
School
Hospital
Airport Property
Safety Compatibility Zones
ENGLISH AS ASECOND LANGUAGEINSTITUTEMILLBRAE SERRA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL
MILLS
101
GOLDEN GATENATIONALCEMETERY
SHOPS AT TANFORAN
Uninc.Uninc.
COOLIDGE GRAMMAR SCHOOL
GLEN OAKS SCHOOL
MILLBRAE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
EDGEMONT SCHOOL
SAINT VERONICA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SIERRA MORENA SCHOOL
CALVARY LUTHERAN PRE-SCHOOLHAPPY HALL SCHOOL
BAYSIDE PARK
ANGUS
A
V
E
PINE ST
KAINS AV
E
BAYHILL
D
R
NOOR A
V
E
TANFOR
A
N
A
V
E
MAHLER RDHINCKLEY RDSTANTON RDMALCOLM RDMITTEN RDCOWAN RDBURLWAY RDSafety Compatibility Zones:
- Jacobs Consultancy Team, 2009; Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2011
County Base Maps:
- San Mateo County Planning & Building Department, 2007
Local Plans:
- Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan, August 2006
- Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, January 2009
- Burlingame General Map, September 1984
- North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan, February 2007- Colma Municipal Code Zoning Maps, December 2003
- Daly City General Plan Land Use Map, 1987
- Hillsborough General Plan, March 2005
- Millbrae Land Use Plan, November 1998
- Pacifica General Plan, August 1996
- San Bruno General Plan, December 2008
- San Mateo City Land Use Plan, March 2007
- San Mateo County Zoning Map, 1992
- South San Francisco General Plan, 1998
Sources:
Municipal Boundary
Road
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Freeway
Railroad
Open Space
Planned use not mapped
Public
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities
Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery
Mixed Use
Transit Oriented Development
Planned Land Use Per General Plans:
Internal boundaries of ALP-defined areas
22 33
33
44
22 33
33
11
44
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
22
44
3333
33
33
22
44
11
11
MILLBRAE SCHOOL
HOOVER CHILDRENS CENTER
MILLBRAE NURSERY SCHOOL
280
380
101
101
101
ELC
A
MIN
O
R
E
A
L
C
A
L
L
A
N
B
L
V
D
MI
S
S
I
O
N
R
D
GRAND
A
V
E
H I LL S ID E BLVD
SNEAT
H
L
N
PA
R
K
W
Y
OAKMONTDR
F
L
E
E
TWOOD
D
R
SHARPPARKRD
ARROYODR
S
A
IRPORT
BLVDN MCDONNELL
RD
L O M IT A AV ES SPRUCE AVECHESTNUT AVES
M
C
D
O
N
N
E
L
L
R
D
E G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
WESTBOROUGHBLVDHOLLY AVES LINDEN AVEUTAH AVE
C
R
E
S
T
MOOR
D
R JENEVEI
N
A
V
E
MADISON
A
VEHICKEYBLVD
CRYS T A L SPRINGSRDE SAN BRUNO AVE
WSANBRUNO A V E
SERRAMONTEBLVD
W O R A N G E A V EALTAMESADR
PARK BLVDROLLINGWOODDR
MAGNOLIA
AVEORANGE AVEEVERGREEN AVESAN MATEO AVEOLYMPIC DRJUN
IPERO
SERRA
B
LVD
GLENVIEW DR
WHITMAN WY
RID
G
E
WOOD
DREARLAVEST
F
RAN
CI
S
BLVD
RICHM
O
N
D
D
RGATEWAYDRCRESTWOODD
R 7TH AVES
K
Y
L
I
N
E
B
O
U
L
E
V
AR
DAVALONDR LITTLEFIELD AVEBA
Y
S
H
O
R
E
H
W
Y
EL
CAM
INO
REALEUCALYPTUS AVETAYLOR BLVDMOSSWOO
D LN
BAR
C
E
L
O
N
A
D
R
82
GRANDAVE
HICKEYBLVD
W SAN B
R
U
N
O
A
V
E
SNEATHLN
S
K
Y
L
I
N
E
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
SAN MATEO AVEHUNTINGTON
AVE
SNEATH
L
N
HELEN
D
R
PacificaPacifica
San BrunoSan Bruno
South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco
MillbraeMillbrae
Daly CityDaly City
BurlingameBurlingame
ColmaColma BrisbaneBrisbane
San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
Exhibit IV-6
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Planfor the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
NOISE COMPATIBILITY ZONES --DETAIL
NORTH
Municipal Boundary
Road
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Freeway
Railroad
San FranciscoSan Francisco
International AirportInternational Airport
C/CAG
City/County Association of Governmentsof San Mateo County, California
Noise Contour Data:
- Draft Environmental Assessment, Proposed Runway Safety Area
Program, San Francisco International Airport. URS Corporation and
BridgeNet International, June 2011
County Base Maps:
- San Mateo County Planning & Building Department, 2007
Local Plans:
- Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan, August 2006
- Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, January 2009
- Burlingame General Map, September 1984
- North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan, February 2007
- Colma Municipal Code Zoning Maps, December 2003
- Daly City General Plan Land Use Map, 1987
- Hillsborough General Plan, March 2005
- Millbrae Land Use Plan, November 1998
- Pacifica General Plan, August 1996
- San Bruno General Plan, December 2008
- San Mateo City Land Use Plan, March 2007
- San Mateo County Zoning Map, 1992
- South San Francisco General Plan, 1998
San FranciscoSan Francisco
BayBay
LEGEND
CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast
Hospital
Place of Worship
School
Airport Property
BART Station
CALTRAIN Station
Open Space
Planned use not mapped
Public
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities
Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery
Mixed Use
Transit Oriented Development
Sources:
Planned Land Use Per General Plans:
CN
E
L
7
5
d
B
Elevation 13.2 FeetElevation 13.2 Feet
10L10R1
R
1
L 19RCN
E
L
7
0
d
B
CNE
L
6
5
d
B
Project Area Boundary
Project Area Boundary
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-6 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
Airspace Protection
The ALUCP includes plans and policies related to the compatibility of proposed land uses and airspace
protection. The purposes of these policies are:
● To protect the public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the public’s exposure to potential
safety hazards that could be created through the construction of tall structures, and
● to protect the public interest in providing for the orderly development of SFO by ensuring that new
development in the Airport environs avoids compromising the airspace in the Airport vicinity
The criteria used in establishing these policies is based on the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14, Safe,
Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace (Part 77), which governs the FAA’s review of
proposed construction exceeding certain height limits, defines airspace obstruction criteria, and provides for
FAA aeronautical studies of proposed construction.
Pursuant to these federal regulations, any new structure or alterations to an existing structure (including
portions of structures, mechanical equipment, flag poles, and other projections) with a height that would
exceed Part 77 elevation thresholds is required to file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with
the FAA. Part 77 Subpart C establishes obstruction standards for the airspace around airports including
approach zones, conical zones, transitional zones, and horizontal zones known as “imaginary surfaces.” These
imaginary surfaces rise from the primary surface (ground level at the SFO runways), and gradually rise along
the approach slopes and sides of the runways. The FAA considers any objects that penetrate these imaginary
surfaces as potential obstructions to air navigation. Obstructions may occur without compromising safe air
navigation, but they must be marked, lighted, and noted on aeronautical publications to ensure that pilots
can see and avoid them.
The ALUCP also includes mapping that illustrates the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace
required for multiple types of flight procedures (such as those typically factored into FAA aeronautical
studies). These critical aeronautical surfaces depict the lowest elevations from all FAA-required obstacle
clearance criteria to ensure safe separation of aircraft. Any proposed structures penetrating these critical
surfaces are likely to receive a Determinations of Hazard from the FAA, and these surfaces indicate the
maximum height at which structures can be considered compatible with Airport operations.
Consistency: Important building height criteria of the ALUCP applicable to the Project Area include:
● Within the Project Area, new or altered buildings that exceed between 80 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL) in the southern portion of the Campus, to 120 feet AMSL in the northerly portion of the
Campus, are required to file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA.
● As indicated on Figure 13-2, the Part 77 airport imaginary surfaces that define potential obstructions
to air navigation begin at a horizontal surface of 163.2 feet MSL for a majority of the Project Area,
and rise to a height of over 200 feet AMSL in the northerly portion of the Campus. Buildings
exceeding the heights of these imaginary surfaces are subject to an aeronautical study prepared by
the FAA (known as an Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis, or OE/AAA review process),
and a determination by the FAA that the building is “not a hazard to air navigation”.
● As also indicated on Figure 13-2, the maximum height at which structures can be considered
compatible with airport operations (i.e., the “critical aeronautical surface”) within the Project Area
ranges from 325 feet AMSL in the South Campus, to as high as 500 feet AMSL in the northwest
portions of the Campus. Any proposed structures penetrating these critical surfaces are likely to
receive Determinations of Hazard (DOH) from the FAA through the aeronautical study process.
Source: SFO ALUCP, Exhibits IV-14 and IV-17,
San Mateo C/CAG, 2012
Figure 13-2
SFO’s FAA Part 77 Building Height Review
Requirements and Restrictions
B: SFO Critical Aeronautical Surfaces
A: Part 77 Surface Heights
82
280
380
101
101
E
L
C
AM
I
NO
RE
A
L
MISSION RD
C
A
L
L
A
N
B
L
V
D
H IL LS ID E BLVD
GRAND
A
V
E
MILLER
A
V
E
SNEAT
H
L
N
PA
R
K
W
Y
OAKMONT DR
F
L
E
E
TW
OOD
DR
ARROYO DR
S
A
IRPOR
T
B
LVD
N MCDONNELL
RD
HUN
T
I
NGTON AVEAIRPOR
T BL
VD
L O M IT A AV ES SPRUCE AVECHESTNUT AVES MCDONNELL RD
E G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
WESTBOROUGH BLVDHOLLY AVES LINDEN AVEUTAH AVE
C
RE
S
T
MOOR D
R
JENEV
EI
N
A
V
E
MADISON A
VESISTE
R
C
I
T
I
E
S
B
L
V
D
CRYS T A L SPRINGS RDE SAN BRUNO AVE
W SAN BRUNO AV E
W O R A N G E A V E
HICKEY BLVD
ALTA MESA DR
PARK BLVDSHARP PARK RDROLLINGWOOD DR
JUN
IPERO
SERRA
B
LVD
MAGNOLIA AVEEVERGREEN AVESAN MATEO AVEHELEN
D
ROLYMPIC DRGLENVIEW DRWHITMAN WY
RID
G
E
WOOD DREARL AVE
SERRAMONTE BLVD
S
A
N
A
N
TO
N
IO
AV
E7TH AVES
K
Y
L
IN
E
B
O
U
L
E
V
ARD
RICHM
O
N
D
D
RAVALON DR
BARCELONA DR LITTLEFIELD AVEBAY
S
H
O
R
E
H
W
YEL CAM
INO
RE
A
LEUCALYPTUS AVETAYLOR B L V DMOSS
WO
OD LN
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
LAIRPORT BLVDW SAN B
R
U
N
O
A
V
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
SNEATH LNS
K
Y
L
I
N
E
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
HUNTINGTON
AVE
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
San BrunoSan Bruno
South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco
PacificaPacifica
MillbraeMillbrae
Daly CityDaly City
ColmaColma BrisbaneBrisbaneSan Bruno Mt State & Cnty ParkSan Bruno Mt State & Cnty Park
Golden Gate National Rec AreaGolden Gate National Rec Area
San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake
BurlingameBurlingame
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Exhibit IV-14
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Planfor the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
14 CFR PART 77 AIRPORT IMAGINARYSURFACES -- NORTH SIDE
NORTH
BART Stations
CALTRAIN Stations
Municipal Boundary
Roads
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Freeways
Railroads
San FranciscoSan Francisco
International AirportInternational Airport
San FranciscoSan Francisco
BayBay
C/CAG
City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County, California
Elevation 13.2 FeetElevation 13.2 Feet
Isometric Drawing of 14 CFR Part 77, Section 77.19Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces
Sources:
14 CFR Part 77 Surfaces: City and County of San Francisco,
Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2010
LEGEND Elevation Contour, feet AMSL100' MSL 14 CFR Part 77 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces
10L10R19R1
R
1
L
163.2' MSL
200' MSL
250' MSL
300' MSL
Horizontal Surface
163.2' MSL
10R = 5.9' MSL
10L = 5.4' MSL163.2' MSL150' MSL163.2' MSL150' MSL100' MSL100' MSL50' MSL19R = 8.8' MSL
1L = 10.3' MSL
1R = 11.3' MSL
50' MSL100' MSL163.2' MSL200' MSL250' MSL300' MSL350' MSL363.2' MSL50'
M
S
L
19L19L =10.0' MSL50' MSL350' MSL
363.2' MSL
50'
M
S
L
100'
M
S
L
280
380
280
280
101
101
101
101
1
35
82
82
1
1
82
RO
L
L
I
N
S
R
D
HIL
L
S
I
D
E
B
L
V
D
E 3RD
A
V
E
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
D
RBAY
S
H
O
R
E BLV
D
EL CAMI
NO RE
AL
MI
S
S
I
O
N
R
D
87TH ST
AIRPORT BLV D
C
A
LL
AN BLVDGRAND
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
SOUTHGATE AVE
TR O USDALE DRSHARP PARK RDSNEAT
H
L
N
PARK WY
CRESPI DRFL
E
E
T
WOOD DR
M U R C H ISON D RSULLIVAN AVEST FRANCIS BLVDJOHN DA
L
Y
B
L
V
D
R ALSTO N A V E
HEL E N D R
A RR O Y O DRS A
IRPORT
BLVDSKYLI
NE BOU
L
E
VARD
GENE
V
A
A
V
E
N
H
U
M
B
O
L
D
T
S
T
FASSLER AVE B
A
Y
S
H
ORE HWYTILTON AVE
N
A
M
P
H
L
E
T
T B
L
V
DN MCDONNELL RDSTAT
E HIG
H
WAY 35HUNT
INGTON
A
VE
LIN
DA M
A
R B
L
VD
HICKEY BLVD
SHA
W
RDADELINE DRE 4TH AVET
E
R
R
A
N
O
V
A BLVDHILLSIDE DRLINDEN AVELO M ITA A V ES SPRUCE AVESERRAMONTE BLVD
CHESTNUT AVEN
D
E
L
AW
A
R
E
S
T
BELLEV
U
E
A
V
E
E GRAND AVE
S
N
O
R
F
O
L
K
S
THOLLY AVEC ARMELITA AVES LINDEN AVEUTAH AV
E
LO
Y
O
L
A
D
R RAY DRD
W
I
G
H
T
R
D
OCCIDENTAL
AVE
N
S
A
N
M
A
T
E
O
D
RCR
E
STMO
OR D
R
JENEV
EI
N
A
V
E
MADISON AVEMILLB
R
A
E
A
V
E
SISTE
R
C
I
T
I
E
S
B
L
V
D
C R Y S T A L SPRINGS RDW SAN B R U N O A VESEBAS
T
IAN
DRALTA ME SA DR
LERIDA WYPARK PLAZA DRP A RK B LVDJUNIPERO SERRA BLVDALICANTE DR MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
ESAN MATEO AVEBROADWAYHOFFMAN STRICH
M
O
N
D
D
R
SEVILLE DRMONTEREY R
D
RIDGEWOOD
DREASTON DRE
A
RL AVE
SAN
AN
TON
IO
AVE
SH
A
R
O
N
A
V
ELARKSPUR D RGATEWAY D
R
EL C E R R IT O AVEC H A T E A U D R
WESTLAKE AVE
BELLA
VI
S
T
A
D
R
L IT TLEFIELD AVECROCKER AVE
E MAR
K
E
T
S
T
LINCOLN AVE
OAKS D
R
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
LODDSTAD BLVDH
U
N
T
D
R
SUMMIT DREUCALYPTUS AVEH E LE N D RSTATE HI
GHWAY 35W SAN
B
R
U
N
O
A
V
EEL CAMINO REALS N E A TH LNM
A
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
EHILLSIDE BLVDE 3RD AVEPacificaPacifica
Daly CityDaly City
San BrunoSan Bruno
BrisbaneBrisbane
San MateoSan Mateo
ColmaColma
HillsboroughHillsborough
South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco
MillbraeMillbrae BurlingameBurlingame
San FranciscoSan Francisco
Foster CityFoster City
BroadmoorBroadmoor
MontaraMontara
San Pedro Valley County ParkSan Pedro Valley County Park
San Bruno Mt State & Cnty ParkSan Bruno Mt State & Cnty Park
Golden Gate National Rec AreaGolden Gate National Rec Area
McNee Ranch State ParkMcNee Ranch State Park
San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake
1. This map is intended for informational and conceptual
planning purposes, generally representing the aeronautical
surfaces considered most critical by San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) and its constituent airlines. It doesnot represent actual survey data, nor should it be used as the
sole source of information regarding compatibility with airspace
clearance requirements in the development of data for an FAA
Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.SFO does not certify its accuracy, information, or title to the
properties contained in this plan. SFO does make any
warrants of any kind, express or implied, in fact or by law, with
respect to boundaries, easements, restrictions, claims,overlaps, or other encumbrances affecting such properties.
2. This map does not replace the FAA's obstruction evaluation /
airport airspace analysis (OE/AAA) review process. Proposingconstruction at elevations and heights that are lower than the
critical aeronautical surfaces shown on this map, (a) does notrelieve the construction sponsor of the obligation to file an FAA
Form 7460-1, and (b) does not ensure that the proposal will be
acceptable to the FAA, SFO, air carriers, or other agencies or
stakeholders. SFO, San Mateo County, and local authoritieshaving jurisdiction reserve the right to re-assess, review, and
seek modifications to projects that may be consistent with this
critical aeronautical surfaces map but that through the FAA
OE/AAA process are found to have unexpected impacts to the
safety or efficiency of operations at SFO.
Notes:
Exhibit IV-17
CRITICAL AERONAUTICAL SURFACES
-- NORTHWEST SIDE
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International AirportC/CAG
City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County, California
Municipal Boundary
Road
Freeway
Railroad
Airport Property
BART Station
CALTRAIN Station
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Sources: San Francisco International Airport, Jacobs
Consultancy, and Planning Technology Inc., 2009
00.510.25
Miles
NORTH
Ground level
(Terrain)
Elevation of critical aeronautical surfaces, feet
Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)
100
Height of Critical Aeronautical Surfaces, Feet Above
Ground Level (AGL)
LEGEND
Elevation of terrain, feet AMSL
Criticalaeronautical
surfaces
AIRPORTMean sea level Elevation, feet AMSL100200300400Elevation of critical aeronautical surfaces, feet AMSL (represented on plan with contours)
Height of critical aeronautical surfaces,feet AGL (represented on plan with color gradient)
Calculated as - =0Ground level(Terrain)
AB
C
A B C
A
B
C
A
C
35 and lower
35- 65
65 - 100
100 - 150
150 and more
Project Area Boundary
Project Area Boundary
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-8 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
According to the Genentech Campus Master Plan Update, the maximum heights of new buildings within
the Campus shall comply with the height regulations and restrictions as established by FAA criteria.
Pursuant to these proposed height regulations, new buildings exceeding the FAA Part 77 height limits will
be subject to FAA review and may be required to provide marking and/or lighting, or may not be
acceptable to the FAA if found to have unexpected impacts to the safety or efficiency of operations at
SFO. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the Project does not result in new buildings
that exceed applicable ALUCP building height limits, and would therefore be consistent with the ALUCP
criteria. The following Table 13-2 provides a generalized indication of how these FAA Part 77 surface
contours apply to new buildings within the Project Area, and the implications for FAA notification and
review (see Figure 13-3). To ensure consistency with ALUCP and FAA criteria, any new building exceeding
these FAA Part 77 surface heights must apply to the FAA for review, thus ensuring consistency with
ALUCP and FAA criteria.
Table 13-2: Applicable FAA Building Height Regulations and Restrictions
Approx.
Ground
Level
Approx. FAA
Part 77
Surface
Height
Approx.
Building
Height
Requiring
FAA Review 1
FAA Critical
Surface
Height
Approx.
Building
Heights
Exceeding
FAA Critical
Surface 2
Lower Campus(Bayview) 10 170 160 425 415
Lower Campus (near Gull) 20 200 180 450 430
Mid Campus (south) 50 163 110 375 325
Mid Campus (near Upper) 80 163 80 425 345
Upper Campus (north of DNA) 90 170 80 450 360
Upper Campus (south of DNA) 100 163 60 450 350
West Campus (near Grand) 30 163 130 350 320
West (near Forbes) 30 180 150 475 445
West (north of Forbes) 30 200 170 500 470
South 20 163 140 325 305
Notes:
1. New buildings exceeding these approximate heights are not expressly prohibited, but are subject to an aeronautical study
prepared by the FAA and a determination by the FAA that the building is “not a hazard to air navigation”
2. New buildings may not exceed the Critical Aeronautic Surface heights.
Any proposed building that exceeds the critical aeronautical surface is presumed to be a hazard to
aircraft operations and would not be acceptable. The Project does not propose any new buildings that
would exceed critical aeronautical surface elevations, and thus is consistent with these ALUCP criteria.
Source: SFO ALUCP, Exhibit IV-14, San Mateo C/CAG, 2012Figure 13-3Approximate Building Heights Triggering FAA Part 77 ReviewBuilding Opportunity SiteNear-Term ProjectsMajor RoadwayShoreline163.2’ MSL200’ MSL160’10’ AMSL80’ AMSL50’ AMSL20’ AMSL30’ AMSL30’ AMSL40’ AMSL100’ AMSL90’ AMSL100’ AMSL30’ AMSL30’ AMSL20’ AMSL10’ AMSL140’110’80’60’60’130’130’ 120’ 80’ 150’170’180’10’ AMSL130’Approximate Gound Surface ElevationApproximate Building Heights Requiring FAA ReviewFAA Part 77 Air Surface Contour
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-10 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
State
McAteer-Petris Act
The McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC), and mandated a study of the Bay. The original San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted in
1968. The most recent Bay Plan was adopted in 2012, including amendments made in 2011 to address
climate change. In 2017, BCDC initiated two amendments to the Bay Plan to address fill for habitat projects,
and to address social equity and environmental justice. These amendments processes are currently
underway.4
The Bay Plan includes two essential components: policies to guide future uses of the Bay and shoreline, and
maps that apply these policies to the present Bay and shoreline. The area over which BCDC has jurisdiction
includes the San Francisco Bay (all areas that are subject to tidal action including sloughs, marshlands located
within five feet above mean sea level, tidelands, and submerged lands); a shoreline band between the Bay
shoreline and 100 feet landward of that line; salt ponds; managed wetlands, and other certain waterways.
Within the BCDC shoreline jurisdiction, the Bay Plan specifies that certain water-oriented land uses should be
permitted on the shoreline as a priority use, and that BCDC may deny applications for BCDC permits [for
projects within the shoreline band and subject to BCDC jurisdiction] that fail to provide maximum feasible
public access to the Bay and the shoreline.
The Project Area is immediately adjacent to the shoreline band and other jurisdictional areas, where certain
Bay Plan policies (including, but not limited to those listed below) may be relevant:
● Projects should be sited and designed to avoid, or if avoidance is infeasible, minimize adverse
impacts on any transition zone present between tidal and upland habitats. Where a transition zone
does not exist and it is feasible and ecologically appropriate, shoreline projects should be designed to
provide a transition zone between tidal and upland habitats.
● Diversions of fresh water should not reduce the inflow into the Bay to the point of damaging the
oxygen content of the Bay, the flushing of the Bay, or the ability of the Bay to support existing
wildlife.
● All projects (other than repairs of existing facilities, small projects that do not increase risks to public
safety, interim projects and infill projects within existing urbanized areas) should be designed to be
resilient to a mid-century sea level rise projection. If it is likely the project will remain in place longer
than mid-century, an adaptive management plan should be developed to address the long-term
impacts that will arise based on a risk assessment using the best available science-based projection
for sea level rise at the end of the century.
● New shoreline protection projects and the maintenance or reconstruction of existing projects and
uses should be authorized if:
a) the project is necessary to provide flood or erosion protection for existing development,
use or infrastructure, or proposed development, use or infrastructure that is consistent with
other Bay Plan policies
b) the type of the protective structure is appropriate for the project site, the uses to be
protected, and the erosion and flooding conditions at the site
4 http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-11
c) the project is properly engineered to provide erosion control and flood protection for the
expected life of the project based on a 100-year flood event, taking into account future sea
level rise
d) the project is properly designed and constructed to prevent significant impediments to
physical and visual public access; and
e): the protection is integrated with current or planned adjacent shoreline protection
measures. Professionals knowledgeable of the Commission's concerns, such as civil
engineers experienced in coastal processes, should participate in the design.
● Shore areas not proposed to be reserved for a priority use should be used for any purpose
(acceptable to the local government having jurisdiction) that uses the Bay as an asset and in no way
affects the Bay adversely. This means any use that does not adversely affect enjoyment of the Bay
and its shoreline by residents, employees, and visitors within the site area itself or within adjacent
areas of the Bay or shoreline.
● Public access should be sited, designed and managed to prevent significant adverse effects on
wildlife.
● Public access improvements provided as a condition of any approval should be consistent with the
project and the physical environment, including protection of Bay natural resources, such as aquatic
life, wildlife and plant communities, and provide for the public's safety and convenience. The
improvements should be designed and built to encourage diverse Bay-related activities and
movement to and along the shoreline, should permit barrier free access for persons with disabilities
to the maximum feasible extent, should include an ongoing maintenance program, and should be
identified with appropriate signs.
● Whenever public access to the Bay is provided as a condition of development, on fill or on the
shoreline, the access should be permanently guaranteed. This should be done wherever appropriate
by requiring dedication of fee title or easements at no cost to the public, in the same manner that
streets, park sites, and school sites are dedicated to the public as part of the subdivision process in
cities and counties. Any public access provided as a condition of development should either be
required to remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or equivalent access
consistent with the project should be provided nearby.
● Access to and along the waterfront should be provided by walkways, trails, or other appropriate
means and connect to the nearest public thoroughfare where convenient parking or public
transportation may be available. Diverse and interesting public access experiences should be
provided which would encourage users to remain in the designated access areas to avoid or
minimize potential adverse effects on wildlife and their habitat.
Consistency: The Project does not specifically propose any development within the 100-foot shoreline
band or other lands subject to BCDC jurisdiction, and thus the majority of Bay Plan policies do not apply.
The Project Area is immediately adjacent to the shoreline band, but does not result in any inconsistencies
with the environmental protection and public access policies listed above. If Genentech were to consider
any development within BCDC jurisdiction in the future, such development proposal would be subject to
BCDC’s Shoreline Development Permit process.
Genentech’s BCDC Permits
Genentech holds two BCDC permits - Permit #18-74(A) and -74(B) originally issued in 1975 and as amended
through December 2009, and Permit #MO5-9 issued August 2006. Among other matters, these permits
require Genentech to:
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-12 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
● provide, improve and use approximately 2.5 acres for public access to and along the Bay shoreline
along the Lower Campus (including irrigated landscaping, a public access pathway and connector
paths, public amenities and public access signs, and parking), and to make the Building 4 parking lot
available to the general public on the weekends and after normal business hours for those using the
public access areas (Permits #18-74(A&B), and to
● construct, use, and maintain a 12-foot-wide public access trail along approximately 2,335 feet of
shoreline along the Mid and South Campus (approximately 3.8 acres), also including a bicycle and
pedestrian ramp, landscaping, site furnishings and a storm drain and drop inlets (Permit #MO5-9)
Consistency: The Project does not propose any development or other activity or use that would be
inconsistent with these existing BCDC permits. If Genentech were to propose modifications to these
permits (e.g., to suggest a relocation of provided public parking facilities), such a proposal would be
subject to BCDC’s Shoreline Development Permit process.
Local
South San Francisco General Plan (1999)
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan outlines the framework that guides
land use decision-making, provides the General Plan land-use classification system, and outlines citywide land
use policies.
According to the General Plan Land Use Diagram (see Figure 13-4), the entire Project Area is designated as
Business and Technology Park, and the South Campus is also combined with a Coastal Commercial
designation. The General Plan Land Use Element policies and guidelines applicable to the Business and
Technology Park and Coastal Commercial Land Use designations, and the Project’s consistency with these
policies and guidelines, is discussed below.
Building Intensity: The General Plan establishes density/intensity standards for each use classification.
Maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site area (FAR) is specified for non-residential uses. Building
area devoted to structured or covered parking is not included in FAR calculations for non-residential
developments. According to Table 2.2-2 of the Land Use Element, the base FAR permitted in the Business and
Technology Park land use designation is 0.5, but an increase to a maximum FAR of 1.0 is permitted with
implementation of a TDM Program and discretionary design standards.
Consistency: The Project represents new development located within the City’s designated Business and
Technology Park land use designation, and will have an ultimate FAR of 1.0. Accordingly, the Project is
required by City Municipal Code to achieve a TDM trip reduction rate of 35 percent. The Project proposes
a TDM goal of a 50 percent reduction in drive-alone arrivals to the Campus prior to buildout, and
establishes a Trip Cap that is equal to the number of AM peak hour single-occupant vehicle trips as
assumed in the 2007 MEIR, while still growing in building space and employees. The combination of a
TDM goal of 50 percent and the Trip Cap will far exceed the City’s TDM requirement. Thus, the Project’s
proposed Campus-wide limit for the Project at an FAR of 1.0, combined with required Design Review for
new development, is fully consistent with the building intensity policies of the General Plan Land Use
Element.
Source: http://zoning.ssf.net/
Figure 13-4
South San Francisco General Plan, Land
Use Diagram
+
–
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING SEARCH Search by Address or APN here...
Map Layers [+]BTP - Business Technology Park
MI - Mixed Industrial
COAC - Coastal Commercial
BC - Business Commercial
PR - Park and Recreation
OS - Open Space
Project Area Boundary
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-14 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
Height Limits: Figure 2-2 of the General Plan Land Use Element established airport-related height limits,
based on the ALUCP. For the majority of the Project Area, this height limit is identified as 161 feet, and up to
211 feet in the northerly portion of the Project Area.5
Consistency: As indicated above, the ALUCP has been amended and updated since the 1999 General
Plan, and effective height regulations and limitations are now more precisely defined. The Project
proposes zoning changes that would be consistent with these new definitions of FAA-established height
limits. These new ALUCP regulations allow new buildings to be as tall as:
● the maximum currently effective (per the 2012 ALUCP) FAA Part 77 air surfaces, or
● taller than the FAA Part 77 air surface, if additional FAA review determines a “no hazard”
● Buildings are prohibited if their height exceeds FAA critical surface heights, or if they are found to be
a hazard to aircraft or airport operations based on FAA review.
The Project proposes zoning changes based on these newer ALUCP criteria, which are thus consistent
with the General Plan height limits.
Permitted Land Uses: The Business and Technology Park land use designation provides locations for a mix of
corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and other offices in a campus-like environment.
Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging,
publishing and printing as well as offices and research facilities. Marinas and shoreline-oriented recreation
are allowed in light of the shoreline location. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing and small-scale retail
and service uses serving local employees and visitors may be permitted as secondary uses. All development is
subject to high design and landscape standards.
Consistency: The Project provides for new growth and development of office, lab/research and
development and other ancillary employee-serving amenity uses within the Genentech Campus, and
provides for continuation of high-level landscaping and design. The Project’s proposed land uses and
facilities are fully consistent with the permitted land uses under the General Plan Land Use Element.
Planning Sub-Areas Element, East of 101
The Planning Subareas Element of the City General Plan established policies specific to individual planning
sub-areas in the city. Policies in this element complement citywide policies included in the Land Use and
other Elements. Areas requiring special emphasis in the City’s planning process include the East of 101 Area.
As South San Francisco’s employment base, the East of 101 area is expected to accommodate a major share
of South San Francisco’s new non-residential development. The East of 101 Sub-area Element policies of the
General Plan are identified and assessed for Project consistency in Table 13-3, below.
5 Figure 2-3 of the Land Use Element indicates that, “For areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights
must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.”
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-15
Table 13-3: Consistency with General Plan Policies of the East of 101 Sub-Area Element
Guiding Policies
Policy 3.5-G-1: Provide appropriate settings for a diverse
range of non-residential uses.
Consistent: The Project includes an expected range of
office, laboratory, amenity and other biotechnology-
related uses, and does not include any residential uses
Policy 3.5-G-2: Direct and actively participate in shaping
the design and urban character of the East of 101 area.
Consistent: The Project (the Master Plan Update) includes
an Urban Design chapter specifically intended to help
further shape the design and urban character of the
Project Area.
Policy 3.5-G-3: Promote campus-style biotechnology,
high technology, and research and development uses.
Consistent: The Project is a Master Plan Update that
promotes campus-styled biotechnology and R&D land
uses within the Project Area.
Policy 3.5-G-4: Use the East of 101 Area Plan as a guide
for detailed implementation of General Plan policies.
See further discussion below regarding East of 101 Area
Plan
Implementing Policies
Policy 3.5-I-1: Maintain the East of 101 Area Plan as the
detailed implementation guide for the area; amend it as
appropriate for consistency with the General Plan. This
includes design review of projects in accordance with
policies established in the Design Element of the East of
101 Area Plan.
See further discussion below regarding East of 101 Area
Plan
Policy 3.5-I-5: Do not permit any residential uses in the
East of 101 area.
Consistent: The project does not include any new
residential uses.
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.
Generally Consistent: The Project proposes zoning
changes that would allow new buildings to be as tall as
the maximum height of the FAA Part 77 air surfaces, or to
exceed the FAA Part 77 surfaces if additional FAA review
concludes in a “no hazard” determination. Building
heights that would exceed FAA critical surface heights or
that are found to be a hazard to aircraft or airport
operations would be prohibited. These proposed
regulations and restrictions represent a more accurate
interpretation of applicable FAA criteria.
Policy 3.5-I-5: Do not vary permitted maximum
development intensities based on lot size.
Consistent: The Project establishes one uniformly applied
FAR of 1.0 across the entire Project Area
Policy 3.5-I-7: Prepare signage and streetscape plan for
the areas designated as Business Commercial and
Business and Technology Park on the General Plan
Diagram, treating the entire area as one large campus,
with unified signage and orchestrated streetscapes that
make wayfinding easy and pleasant.
Consistent: The Project includes continuation of the
existing streetscape and signage program as currently
exists within the Project Area (i.e., within the Genentech
Campus)
Policy 3.5-I-8: Encourage the development of employee-
serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, and support -
commercial establishments such as dry-cleaners, to meet
the needs of the employees in the East of 101 area. Such
uses could be located within independent centers or
integrated into office parks or technology campuses.
Consistent: The Project provides for, and anticipates,
expansion of employee-serving amenity uses as an
integral component of new growth and development in
the Project Area.
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-16 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
Table 13-3: Consistency with General Plan Policies of the East of 101 Sub-Area Element
Policy 3.5-I-9: Examine the feasibility of developing a
shoreline park at the terminus of East Grand Avenue.
The terminus of East Grand Avenue is now at the
Genentech South Campus. The South Campus was
developed in 2002 as the Britannia East Grand project,
and its construction precludes development of a shoreline
park in this area. This inconsistent condition already
exists and is not attributable to the Project. Thus, the
Project is neither consistent nor inconsistent with this
policy. Opportunities for a shoreline park near the
terminus of East Grand Avenue are further to the south,
not within the Project 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.
Consistent: The majority of the Project Area is located
north of East Grand Avenue, and the Project does not
propose any new warehouse or distribution uses. The
Project Area does include existing warehouse and
distribution land uses that may be retained into the future,
or that may be redeveloped for new office and lab space.
Policy 3.5-I-13: Facilitate waterfront enhancement and
accessibility
Consistent: The Project Area includes shoreline public
access along the Bay Trail, which will be retained as part
of the Project. The Project (the Urban Design chapter of
the Master Plan Update) also anticipates enhanced access
to the shoreline Bay Trail with additional bike and
pedestrian trail connections as part of new individual
development projects that may occur nearest the
shoreline. These enhanced access improvements would
require BCDC review and consent, but would be
consistent with BCDC objectives to facilitate waterfront
access.
Economic Development Element
Although not required by State law, the city’s Economic Development Element of the General Plan provides a
policy framework for ensuring South San Francisco’s long-term competitiveness in the region. This Element
outlines the City’s economic development objectives, serves to ensure that economic decision-making is
integrated with other aspects of the city’s development, and provides a framework for detailed implementing
actions. The Economic Development Element address a wide range of economic development sectors, but
includes the following specific to the Project:
“Policy 6-I-6: Create a task force of biotech/R&D industry leaders to work toward the
creation of a campus environment in the East of 101 area, and to promote the area as a high
amenity growth-based industrial activity center.
The biotech/R&D industry is South San Francisco’s largest industrial cluster. While the
provisions of the General Plan permit a doubling of current employment at Plan buildout,
many other cities are also targeting similar development. The most likely source of
competition is likely to be the Mission Bay project in San Francisco, which includes the new
UCSF biotech/R&D campus. It is vital that the City strives to create an environment that is
beneficial in realizing this potential and maintains the City’s competitive edge. The creation
of a campus environment in the East of 101 area would not only enhance the prestige of
South San Francisco as the biotech/R&D capital, but also promote the City as a high amenity
location for these activities. This concept would include a high level of landscaping and
design, a unified signage and wayfinding system, orchestrated streetscapes, nearby services
including child care programs, and access to parkland or open space.”
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-17
Consistency: The Project is a direct example of the type of development promoted pursuant to this
Economic Development policy. Genentech is a biotechnology leader and is firmly established in the East
of 101 Area with an already well-defined campus. The Project provides for new growth and development
within the Genentech Campus, and provides for continuation of high-level landscaping and design, a
unified signage and wayfinding system, orchestrated streetscapes, nearby services including child care
programs, and access to park land or open space.
East of 101 Area Plan (adopted 1994)
The Project Area is located within the East of 101 Area Plan. This Area Plan provides detailed implementation
guidelines for the area, principally used to provide direction related to project design and certain other facets
of development not otherwise covered in the General Plan or other City plans. As indicated in Figure 13-5,
the East of 101 Area Plan designates the Project Area as Planned Industrial, with the South Campus shown as
a combined designation with Coastal Commercial. The land use plan was intended to provide a balance
between industrial and commercial development, and designed to accommodate market demands for
expansion. All development in the East of 101 Area is to be consistent with the provisions of these land use
categories, and with those policies that are specifically related to the Project Area and assessed for
consistency in Table 13-4, below.
Consistency: As indicated in Table 13-4, the Project is fully consistent with those broad Area Plan policies
that promote planned industrial office and commercial uses. The Project is also consistent with policies
that encourage or promote development that enhances net revenues to the City, creates quality jobs for
South San Francisco and that respects and is in character with the Bay environment. In addition to the
specific policies mentioned above, the East of 101 Area Plan also lists guiding policies to control the
design of individual buildings, sites, and streetscape, including policies related to parking, loading, and
access design; landscaping and lighting; utility lines; fencing and screening; open space; and signage.
Source: South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan
Figure 13-5
East of 101 Area Plan, Land Use Map
Project Area Boundary
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-19
Table13-4: Consistency with East of 101 Area Plan Policies for Planned Industrial Land Uses
The Planned Industrial land use category includes
industrial parks, light manufacturing, distribution
wholesale and warehouse uses office uses and research
and development. Incidental retail sales and commercial
service uses are also allowed in the Planned Industrial
category. The principal development and employment-
generating uses allowed in this district are characterized
by research, product development and related activities.
Small business space offices and support retail intended
to serve the immediate area are also conducive to the
Planned Industrial land use. The quality of on-site
improvements in this area will commonly be higher than
the Light Industrial category. The Planned Industrial land
use category is intended to accommodate campus-like
environments for corporate headquarters research and
development facilities and office or warehouse uses in
high quality buildings
Consistent: The Project provides for expansion and
growth of land uses as defined in the East of 101 Area
Plan as research and development, with incidental
employee-serving ancillary retail and service uses. The
Project provides for continuation and enhancement of the
campus-like environment for the Genentech corporate
facilities, with high quality buildings and on-site
improvements.
Policy LU-5a: Uses allowed in the Planned Industrial
category shall typically include non-nuisance light
manufacturing, incubator facilities, testing, repairing,
packaging, publishing and printing offices, administrative
activities, research and development facilities big-box
retail and warehouse sales, freight forwarding,
warehousing, distribution centers and facilities, customs
brokerages, offices, service businesses that serve the uses
described above, marinas and shoreline-oriented
recreation.
Consistent: The Project consists of new and existing
office and administrative facilities, research and
development, biotechnology manufacturing, warehouse
and distribution facilities, and services that serve the uses
described above, fully consistent with this policy.
Policy LU-5b: The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in
the Planned Industrial category is 0.55. Structured
parking areas ancillary to the main use on a site are
excluded from the Floor Area Ratio calculations.
LU Policy 7b: The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in
the Coastal Commercial category is 0.60.
Policy LU-15: Maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios for
the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-7
shall apply only to new construction Where existing
buildings on a site exceed the allowed FAR they may be
replaced or remodeled with buildings up to the existing
FAR on the site provided that all new construction meets
all other polices of this Plan and all other codes and
regulations in effect at the time of construction
Policy LU-17: The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio
may be exceeded through development of a Master Plan,
provided the Planning Commission conduct a one-time
review of the Master Plan and determines that sufficient
roadway and infrastructure capacity exists to
accommodate greater FARs at the facility. After such
review, future developments at the facility can exceed the
FARs allowed, without additional Planning Commission
review as long as they are consistent with the Master
Plan.
Consistent: The prior 2007 Master Plan anticipated a
buildout potential of up to 6 million square feet, at an
FAR of 0.69 – exceeding the East of 101 Area Plan limit
of 0.55. This increased FAR was permitted pursuant to
approval of that 2007 Master Plan. Similarly, the Project
proposes increasing the buildout potential of the Project
Area up to 9 million square feet, at an FAR of 1.0. The
1.0 FAR is consistent with the underlying Genentech
Master Plan zoning district, provided the temporary
buildout limitation (expected through year 2016) is
removed, as proposed pursuant to the Project.
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-20 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
Table13-4: Consistency with East of 101 Area Plan Policies for Planned Industrial Land Uses
Policy LU-7a: Uses allowed in the Coastal Commercial
category shall typically include business and professional
services, administrative and business offices, convenience
sales, restaurants, personal services, repair services,
limited retail sales, hotel and motel uses with a coastal
orientation, recreational facilities and marinas.
Consistent: The combined Coastal Commercial/ Planned
Industrial designation enables additional land uses that
may not be fully consistent with one or the other land use
designation. As indicated above, the Project is fully
consistent with the Planned Industrial category, and does
not need to be simultaneously consistent with the Coastal
Commercial category.
Policy LU-11: In areas in a mixed Coastal Commercial/
Planned Industrial or Coastal Commercial/ Light Industrial
category, any industrial uses should be transitional. The
City deems Coastal Commercial uses to be most
appropriate in these areas and such uses are encouraged.
Consistent: At the time the Britannia East Grand project
(now South Campus) was incorporated into the
Genentech Master Plan zoning district, the accompanying
City Resolution concluded that the proposed Zoning Map
and Text Amendments and Master Plan Amendments
were “consistent and compatible with all elements of the
City of South San Francisco General Plan.” The General
Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to
encourage the development of high-technology campuses
in the East of 101 Area. The Project is a continuation and
expansion of such high-technology campus uses.
Policy LU-13: No residential development shall occur in
the East of 101 Area.
Consistent: The Project does not include any residential
land use.
Policy LU-16: The City shall encourage development of
campus settings and planned growth for multiple-parcel
developments and shall promote the development of
facility Master Plans and design standards that meet the
Area Plan objectives. Master Plans shall include specific
commitments to high quality design that meet the City
goals for a site. The minimum size for a Master Plan site
is 20 acres.
Consistent: The Project provides for new growth and
development within a campus setting (the approximately
207-acre Genentech Campus), and provides for
continuation of high-level landscaping and design, a
unified signage and wayfinding system, orchestrated
streetscapes, nearby services including child care
programs, and access to park land or open space.
Policy LU-18: Noxious industrial uses that emit odors or
large quantities of air pollutants or are visually
unattractive shall not be allowed in the East of 101 Area
This restriction includes meat processing plants above-
ground flammable liquid storage and other similar
intensive industrial uses
Policy LU-19: Uses that emit loud noise or create
hazardous materials, water contaminants, or other
pollutants shall only be allowed in the East of 101 Area
after review by the Planning Commission which must
find in addition to any other required findings that a
proposed use would include all feasible measures to
mitigate such adverse impacts and that the use would
also have mitigating benefits such as employment
creation or revenue generation
Consistent: The Project Area includes
industrial/manufacturing activities and anticipates
expansion of lab/R&D uses, but those activities are, and
will be operated in a manner as to not emit noxious odors
or large quantities of air pollutants, and designed to be
visually attractive.
Use of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous
materials, water contaminants, or other pollutants that
maybe associated with the Project will be regulated to
avoid adverse impacts (see other relevant chapters of this
EIR).
Policy LU-23: Maximum heights of buildings in the East
of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights
established by the Airport Land Use Commission based
on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria
Generally Consistent: The Project proposes zoning
changes that would allow new buildings to be as tall as
the maximum height of the FAA Part 77 air surfaces, or to
exceed the FAA Part 77 surfaces if additional FAA review
concludes in a “no hazard” determination. Building
heights that would exceed FAA critical surface heights or
that are found to be a hazard to aircraft or airport
operations would be prohibited. These proposed
regulations and restrictions represent a more accurate
interpretation of applicable FAA criteria.
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-21
Table13-4: Consistency with East of 101 Area Plan Policies for Planned Industrial Land Uses
Policy LU-24: Retail and personal services shall be
encouraged throughout the area to serve the employees
of the East of 101 Area. In the Light Industrial and
Planned Industrial categories, dedicated retail space may
be included in a development without being applied to
the allowed FAR, provided such development includes
adequate parking and does not exceed 10 percent of the
building square footage of a project.
Consistent: The Project provides for and anticipates
expansion of employee-serving amenity uses (such as on-
site retail and personal services) as an integral component
of new growth and development in the Project Area. The
amount of proposed employee-serving amenity uses
(approximately 305,000 sf) represents approximately 7%
of the total Project (4,239,000 SF), thus not exceeding 10
percent of the total.
Policy LU-26: Childcare facilities may be built as part of a
commercial or industrial development and shall not be
counted as part of the Floor Area Ratio of the project.
Consistent: The Project Area includes child-care facilities
and may include expansion of such facilities in the future.
East of 101 Area Development Potential: The East of 101
Area could probably accommodate a total of 16,491,304
square feet of new building area. This would result in a
total building area of 34,588,073 square feet in the East
of 101 Area6
Consistent: Based on the traffic model inputs for
cumulative buildout in the East of 101 Area as used in
this EIR, the cumulative scenario (which includes
approximately 9 million square feet in the Project Area)
shows a total of approximately 33.8 million square feet of
building space. This is within the probable development
potential of approximately 34.6 million square feet as
estimated in the East of 101 Area Plan.
General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan Policies Regarding Steep Slopes
General Plan Health and Safety Element
The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan Health and Safety Element contains policies designed to minimize
the risks associated with development in areas of seismic hazards. As such, the South San Francisco General
Plan Health and Safety Element has set forth specific guidelines with respect to site treatment and building
design and the unique geological hazards of the area. As indicated in the Health and Safety Element, “the
strong ground motions that occur during earthquakes are capable of inducing landslides, generally where
unstable soil conditions already exist. The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest
susceptibility to landsliding are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units of slope greater than 15 percent.
In South San Francisco this hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the
Terrabay development and near Skyline Boulevard. Implementing Policy 8.1-2 provides that:
“Steep hillside areas (i.e., slopes in excess of 30 percent grade) should be retained in their natural state.
Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading
should be kept to a minimum.”
As indicated in Figure 13-6, the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco generally does not contain steep
slopes, except for portions of the Genentech Campus that are at and below Point San Bruno Hill.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan includes a Geotechnical Safety Element (Chapter 10). This chapter provides policies
to ensure acceptable protection of people and development from the risks associated with geotechnical
hazards in the East of 101 Area. Among these policies is Policy Geo-9 regarding steep slopes:
6 East of 101 Plan, Table 1: Area Plan Development Potential
8: HEALTH AND SAFETY8-3Figure SlopSlope over 30 percentSlope 15-30 percentSlope less than 15 percentHillside BlvdChesnut AveGrand AveSpruce AveSisterCities BlvdBayshoreBlvdOysterPoint BlvdGatewayBlvdSouth
Airpor
t
Blvd
Linden AveSanMateoAveEl Camino Real
OrangeAveElCaminoRe a l
HickeyBlvdJ uniper
o Serra
Blvd
Skyline BlvdGellert Blvd
CallanBlvdAirport BlvdMiss ion R dWestboroughBlvdINTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe AveAltaMesaDrArroyoDrCarte rDrGreendaleDrGalwa y Dr
Shannon DrDonegal AveAp pianWayAvalon DrAltaVista DrNorthwood DrRockwood DrWildwood DrAlida WayWestOrange AveHuntington A v eVictory AveLowrie AveU.S.HIGHWAY 101Utah AveShaw RdMitchell AveEastGrandAveEastGrandAveHarbor WayGrandviewDrEccles AveForbesAveLittlefieldAveHillside BlvdSchool StArmour AveLinden AveMaple AveMagnolia AveParkWayMiller AveBaden AveCommercial AveRailroad AveEucalyptus AveMille
r
Ave Willow AveHollyAveEvergreen DrCrestwood
Dr
Morningside AveMission
Rd
ClayAveNe wman
Dr
Longfo
rd
D
r
Arlington DrDuval DrSerr
a
DrCamaritas AveLomaDr
CuestaDrPonderosa RdFairwayD rA
StB St
Hazelwood DrRosewoodValverdeDrINTERSTATE 38011/40MILES1/2Source: USGS Digital Elevation Model, San Francisco SouthColmaSan BrunoPacificaDalyCitySan franciscoInternationalAirportSan Bruno MountainCounty ParkSanFranciscoBayCalifornia Golfand Country ClubSign HillParkSan Bruno CanalColma Creek2001001001001001002002002003003 00
30 0
300400400400300
400500600500400300200200300400200200200400200200200300400500500600 600
50040040050 0
400500
600
600600600400500
700700
70 0 2001001001005006007005006007008009001000500600700400300300200300400400500400300600400500600700700600500400300 600500400300200Figure 8-1 SlopeSource: SSF General Plan Health and Safety Element, Figure 8-1, 1999Figure 13-6General Plan Health and Safety Element, Slope MapSlopes over 30%Slopes 15% to 30%Slopes less than 30%
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13‐23
“Policy GEO‐9: Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state.
Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading
should be kept to a minimum.”
“The slopes of San Bruno Point Hill may exceed 30 percent grade. The hill is a visually prominent
landmark in the East of 101 Area and should be preserved. In addition, the slopes of the hill may have
unstable conditions due to their steep grade. Therefore, preservation of the natural landmark should
continue and development shall not encroach upon the slopes of the hillside.”
Consistency: This EIR’s Project Description identifies general locations where new development or
redevelopment pursuant to the Master Plan Update is most likely to occur, indicated as “Opportunity
Sites” throughout the Campus. Among these identified Opportunity Sites are certain areas of steep
topography (i.e., slopes in excess of 30 percent grade) that has presented a challenge to cohesive campus
planning, separating lower portions of the Campus from the upper portions of the Campus by elevation.
The Project Descriptions indicates that it is possible for new buildings, potentially including new parking
structures, to be constructed into the base or sides of these hillsides, such that the top portions of these
new buildings could serve as a “bridge” linking the upper and lower elevations of the Campus together.
The environmental implications of development on these steeper Opportunity Areas have been fully
analyzed elsewhere in this EIR.
● Chapter 9: Geology includes an evaluation of potential impacts related to the risk of landslides and
slope instability on these identified hillside Opportunity Sites, and Mitigation Measure Geology 2 ‐
Geotechnical Requirements for Hillside Opportunity Sites, specifically requires site‐specific
geotechnical studies to be conducted for each new development at hillside Opportunity Sites, with
implementation of site specific recommendations as part of detailed plans for subsequent
development at these sites. These geotechnical studies must include site‐specific geotechnical
recommendations to address the stability of existing and proposed slopes and the stability of
proposed excavations, detailed recommendations addressing the stability of the underlying bedrock,
appropriate shoring systems to be used to ensure the stability of excavations, evaluation of drainage
and infiltration, installation of horizontal drains to remove seepage, and construction of buttress wall
at the base of the slopes to reduce the risk of damage.
● Chapter 5: Aesthetics includes an evaluation of potential impacts related to the loss of views of the
Point San Bruno Hill, concluding that redevelopment of steeper Opportunity Sites does not include
substantial re‐grading that would encroach into the steep sides of the Point San Bruno Hill and would
not modify the natural landform of Point San Bruno Hill, and thus would not result in significant
impacts related to views of this landmark geologic feature.
However, development of steeper Opportunity Sites is not consistent with the direction of Policy Geo‐9
of the East of 101 Area Plan requiring that steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade “shall be”
retained in their natural state. Development of steeper Opportunity Sites is also not fully consistent with
Policy 8.1.2 of the General Plan Health and Safety Element, which less directly provides that steep hillside
areas (i.e., slopes in excess of 30 percent grade) “should be” retained in their natural state.
Pursuant to pending General Plan update efforts, the Planning Commission and City Council may choose
to consider amendments to these policies to provide further clarification. Absent a revision or
modification to the policies in the East of 101 Area Plan, Opportunity Sites identified on any slopes
greater than 30% will be subject to further review, including an individual determination of whether
Mitigation Measure Geology 2 (Geotechnical Requirements for Hillside Opportunity Sites) demonstrates
an alternative means of complying with the underlying purpose of these policies to address the
susceptibility of hillside areas to landsliding.
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-24 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
South San Francisco Municipal Code
The South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 20: Zoning, section 20.260.001 establishes the Genentech
Master Plan zoning district, and prescribes land use regulations for facility-wide development in accordance
with the 2007 Genentech Facilities Ten-Year Master Plan. The entire Project Area is located within the
Genentech Master Plan zoning district (see Figure 13-7). Under these zoning regulations, new development is
required to comply with the development standards and requirements set forth in the Business Technology
Park zoning district and conditions of prior City approvals, except for certain specific development standards
and requirements that uniquely apply to the Genentech Master Plan zoning district. The purposes of the
unique Genentech Master Plan zoning district’s development standards are:
● To establish a facility-wide architectural character, a system of open space elements and a
pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan linking buildings and uses together in a flexible, logical and
orderly manner for the Genentech all lots of record and their structures owned or leased by
Genentech and reclassified such that the uniform regulations and requirements covered by the
Genentech Master Plan district apply;
● To increase the flexibility of the City’s land use regulations and the speed of its review procedures to
reflect the quickly changing needs of a research and development focused corporation;
● To establish facility-wide development standards and design guidelines consistent with the City’s
General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan; and
● To define a baseline of existing conditions for each lot reclassified to the Genentech Master Plan
district.
Zoning Standards of the Genentech Master Plan Zoning District
The Project proposes a number of changes to the development standards of the Genentech Master Plan
zoning district. These changes are proposed as a means of addressing the unique purpose of the Genentech
Master Plan District’s development standards to “increase the flexibility of the City’s land use regulations and
the speed of its review procedures to reflect the quickly changing needs of a research and development
focused corporation.”7 These proposed zoning changes address both substantive development standards and
City processes related to the following topics:
● Lot coverage (see Aesthetics chapter)
● Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) (see Project Description)
● Building heights (see full analysis in this Land Use chapter and in the Hazards chapter)
● Off-street parking requirements (see Transportation chapter)
● Growth and development projections (i.e., removing the temporary development limitations for the
Genentech Campus at an overall limit of 6 million square feet – see Project Description), and
● Signage (see Aesthetics chapter)
These proposed zoning changes do not result in any physical changes not otherwise fully described in the
Project Description, and so do not individually or collectively result in a physical environmental impact
beyond those effects identified elsewhere in this EIR. For reference, the text of these proposed zoning text
changes are included in Appendix 13-A.
7 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 20.260.001 (B)
Source: http://zoning.ssf.net/
Figure 13-7
South San Francisco Zoning Map +
–
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING SEARCH Search by Address or APN here... Map Layers [+]
GMP - Genentech Master Plan District
OPSPD - Oyster Point Specific Plan District
GSPD - Gateway Specific Plan District
BWCSPD - Bay West Cove Specific Plan District
BTP - Business Technology Park
MI - Mixed Industrial
BC - Business Commercial
FC - Freeway Commercial
PR - Park and Recreation
PQP - Public / Quasi-Public
Project Area Boundary
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-26 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Analytic Method
This section discusses potential land use impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed
Project. It presents the thresholds of significance, describes the approach to the analysis and identifies
potential impacts and mitigation measures as applicable. The analysis of land use impacts focuses on physical
land use changes that would have a direct or indirect adverse effect on the physical environment. Analysis of
the Project’s consistency with those established land use plans and policies that are not related to, or
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, are discussed above in the
Regulatory Setting section.
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and established City
of South San Francisco standards and practices. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the Project could
result in potentially significant land use impacts if the Project would result in any of the following:
1. Physically divide an established community
2. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
Physically Divide an Established Community/Residential or Business Displacement
Land Use 1: The Project would not physically divide an established community (No Impact).
Existing and future uses within the Project Area include commercial, manufacturing, and research and
development activities. These uses are consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area, which
include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities.
There are no residential structures within the Project Area, and residential use is not permitted in the East of
101 Area. No existing business or residential community would be displaced by the proposed Project.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
Conflict with Policies or Regulations Adopted to Avoid or Mitigate an Environmental Effect
Land Use 2: Implementation of the Project would modify or change certain land use regulations applicable to
the Project Area, but would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. (LTS)
Consistency with SFO ALUCP
As more fully described in the above Regulatory Setting section of this Chapter, the San Francisco
International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) provides policies and regulations pertaining to land
use that may affect, or be affected by airport operations. As indicated in the Consistency Analysis, the Project
would not result in a conflict with any of the following applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of the
ALUCP that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect:
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-27
● The Project Area is not located within an ALUCP-designated Safety Compatibility zones established to
restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to
vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident.
● The Project Area is located outside of the area subject to airport operations-related noise contours
of 65 dBA CNEL, in an area where commercial and industrial land use and related structures (such as
the Project) are compatible, without restrictions.
● The Project Area is subject to Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, which provide guidance for the
height of objects that may affect normal aviation operations or that could create a safety hazard for
aircraft. The majority of the Project Area is located within the Horizontal Surface Plane established
by the ALUCP at an elevation of 163.2 feet above mean sea level (MSL), and the northern portion of
the Project Area is outside of the Horizontal Surface Plane where building heights can begin to
exceed 163.2 feet MSL at a 20:1 slope. Any proposed new building or structure within the Project
Area that exceeds the applicable FAA Part 77 surface elevations would be inconsistent with the
airspace protection criteria of the ALUCP, could adversely affect airport operations and/or could
create a safety hazard for aircraft. The Master Plan Update includes policies and plans that
require all new buildings within the Project Area to respect the height restrictions imposed by
the FAA to ensure a “No Hazard” determination, such that no inconsistencies would occur.
Guidance provided by the FAA Part 77 criteria is not absolute, and deviation from the Part 77
standards does not necessarily mean that a No Hazard determination can be achieved, only that the
object must be evaluated by the FAA. Based on this review, the FAA may determine that the building
may proceed, but that mitigating actions (such as markings or lighting) may be required.
● No new buildings are proposed pursuant to the Project that would exceed elevations indicated as
SFO “critical aeronautical surfaces”.
Consistency with BCDC Bay Plan
As more fully described in the above Regulatory Setting section of this Chapter, the Bay Plan provides policies
and regulations to assist BCDC in its protection of the Bay and in its exercise of permit authority over
development adjacent to the Bay. The McAteer-Petris Act defines BCDC’s jurisdiction as being inclusive of all
areas of the San Francisco Bay subject to tidal action (including sloughs, marshlands lying between mean high
tide and five feet above mean sea level, tidelands, submerged lands) and a shoreline band located between
the shoreline and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that shoreline.
The Project does not propose any specific development activity within areas subject to BCDC
jurisdiction. If Genentech were to consider any development within BCDC jurisdiction in the future, such
development proposal would be subject to BCDC’s Shoreline Development Permit process and additional
environmental review. The Project does not result in a conflict with any BCDC policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, as further described below.
● The Project would not adversely affect any transition zone between tidal and upland habitats, and
the 100-foot shoreline band (within which no development is proposed) provides a transition zone
between tidal habitats and developed upland areas.
● The Project does not include any diversions of fresh water (runoff) that would reduce inflow into the
Bay or damaging the oxygen content, flushing, or the ability of the Bay to support existing wildlife.
● The Project does not propose any new shoreline protection projects, or new or modified
maintenance or reconstruction of existing shoreline protection projects.
● The Project uses the Bay as an aesthetic, visual and recreational asset, and does not adversely affect
enjoyment of the Bay and its shoreline.
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-28 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
● The Project maintains existing public access improvements that were provided as conditions of prior
approvals, including public access easements for the Bay Trail.
● The Project retains and proposes expanded opportunities for access to and along the waterfront via
walkways and trails connected to the Campus.
● Most of adverse effects of mid-century sea level rise at the Genentech Campus will likely be confined
to the 100-foot shoreline setback along the Bay (see Hydrology chapter of this EIR). This setback
restricts Campus development adjacent to sensitive natural areas such as tidal wetlands, and
provides for storm surge and wave dissipation. In the longer term (or under accelerated and/or more
severe weather conditions) adaptation to sea level rise at the Campus will likely prove to be more
critical. As new development occurs in susceptible areas of the Campus, Genentech will consider
adaptation strategies. These strategies may include targeting new infrastructure investments for
areas that are at lower risk for inundation and storm surge, elevating the grade of certain new
development projects above the expected sea level rise inundation zone, and building a levee to
protect the lower Campus areas from inundation and erosion resulting from sea level rise.
Consistency with the SSF General Plan
As indicated in the Regulatory Setting section above, the Project is generally consistent with the City of South
San Francisco General Plan (including the Land Use Element, the East of 101 Sub-Area Element and the
Economic Development Element). The Project’s only identified inconsistency with the General Plan pertains
to effective height regulations and limitations, which are now more precisely defined to represent an
accurate interpretation of applicable FAA criteria (see discussion under Consistency with SFO ALUCP, above).
The Project would not conflict with any South San Francisco General Plan policies adopted for the purposes
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Consistency with the East of 101 Area Plan
The Project is generally consistent with policies of the East of 101 Area Plan. The Project’s only identified
inconsistency with the East of 101 Area Plan pertains to effective height regulations and limitations, which
are now more precisely defined to represent an accurate interpretation of applicable FAA criteria (see
discussion under Consistency with SFO ALUCP, above). The Project would not conflict with any East of 101
Area Plan policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Consistency with Policies Pertaining to Steep Slopes
As more fully described in the above Regulatory Setting section of this Chapter, the South San Francisco
General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan each include policies indicating steep hillside areas in excess of 30
percent grade should/shall (respectively) be retained in their natural state. As indicated in the Consistency
Analysis above, the Project does propose development on steeper hillside sites, but mitigation measures
(Mitigation Measure Geology 2 - Geotechnical Requirements for Hillside Opportunity Sites) specifically
require site-specific geotechnical studies to be conducted for each new development at these hillside
Opportunity Sites, with implementation of site-specific recommendations as part of detailed plans for
subsequent development. With implementation of these mitigation requirements, the potential
environmental impacts pertaining to development of hillside areas susceptible to landsliding would be
reduced to less than significant, and the potential conflict with these policies would not result in significant
environmental effect not otherwise addressed.
Consistency with City Zoning
As indicated in the Regulatory Setting section above, the Project proposes numerous changes to the
regulatory standards of the Genentech Master Plan zoning district. Primary among these proposed changes is
the removal of the temporary (through year 2016) limitation on buildout potential at 6 million square feet,
Chapter 13: Land Use
Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 13-29
replaced with an FAR limit of 1.0, which would effectively enable a buildout potential within the Project Area
of 9 million square feet. The environmental consequences of this proposed change to the zoning standards is
the focus of this EIR, and all such impacts are fully disclosed. The Project also proposes new building height
limits that are a more accurate interpretation of applicable FAA criteria (see discussion under Consistency
with SFO ALUCP, above). None of the other proposed changes to effective zoning standards would directly
conflict with any standards adopted specifically for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect.
Mitigation Measures
None required. However, to clarify the City’s position regarding consistency with ALUCP criteria, the following
mitigation measure is recommended:
MM Land Use 2 - Building Height Limits: Any proposed building within the Project Area that would exceed
FAA notification heights shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA.
a) Any structure that exceeds the Horizontal Surface Plane of 163.2 feet above mean sea level, that
otherwise exceeds applicable FAA Part 77 criteria, or which exceed 200 feet above the ground
level of its site shall be required to comply with the findings of an FAA aeronautical study.
Structures subject to such FAA review shall comply with any FAA-recommended alterations in
the building design and/or height, and any recommended marking and lighting of the structure
as may be necessary to be found by the FAA as not posing a hazard to air navigation.
b) The maximum height of new buildings within the Project area shall be the lower of the height
shown on the SFO Critical Aeronautical Surfaces Map, or the maximum height determined by the
FAA as being “not a hazard to air navigation” based on an aeronautical study.
c) The Project proponent shall provide documentation to the City Planning Division demonstrating
that the FAA has issued a ‘Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” when such
determination is applicable.
Conflicts with Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan
Land Use 3: The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. (No impact)
The Project site is not included in any natural community conservation plan or applicable habitat
conservation plan. Therefore, the Project has no impact related to potential conflicts with such plans or
programs. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 MEIR and 2012 SMEIR.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
Cumulative Land Use Effects
Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR identifies the foreseeable future buildout of the East of 101 Area. The majority of
the anticipated future cumulative development consists of new office/R&D and commercial uses. The Project
would contribute to these overall changes in land use in the East of 101 Area. Development pursuant to the
Master Plan Update, in combination with other cumulative development in East of 101 will increase the
density of the employment-generating land use in the East of 101 Area, but would be consistent with
buildout expectations of the SSF General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. The City encourages redevelopment
of underutilized sites with high-quality campus-style biotechnology, technology and research and
development uses.
Chapter 13: Land Use
Page 13-30 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR
Other office/R&D uses anticipated under cumulative conditions are anticipated to be consistent with land use
plans and policies in effect at the time. However, to the extent that other cumulative development may not
be fully consistent with the General Plan and other plans, policies and regulations, such inconsistencies are
not inherently a cumulative CEQA impact unless such inconsistencies cause a significant environmental
effect. The Project will maintain the BCDC 100-foot shoreline easement that includes the Bay Trail, and will
add new connections from the Campus to facilitate access to the waterfront. The Master Plan Update, in
combination with other cumulative development in East of 101 will not contribute to a physical division of
the established business community.
For these reasons, the Project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects
in the East of 101 Area will have a less than significant cumulative land use impact. The Project will not make
a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative land use impact, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.