HomeMy WebLinkAbout04_10_LTSCity of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-1 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10 Less-than-Significant Impacts
In the course of evaluating certain topics included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Appendix G checklist, the proposed 751 Gateway Boulevard Project (proposed project) was
found to have less-than-significant impacts or no impacts due to the project type and location. This
section briefly describes these effects, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15128. Note that some of
the topics in which the proposed project was determined to have no impact or a less-than-significant
impact are addressed in the various draft environmental impact report (EIR) sections (Sections 4.2
through 4.10) to provide a more comprehensive discussion as to why impacts would be less than
significant and provide more detail for decision makers and the general public.
Each topic includes a brief description of the regulatory framework, significance criteria, approach to
analysis, and impact evaluation. Information about the environmental setting of the proposed project
is incorporated within the impact analysis discussions for the impact areas below, where necessary, to
provide a baseline context for the impact analysis.
4.10.1 Aesthetics
4.10.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether
specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy
standards. The General Plan contains a Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element, which outlines
policies relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities. The General Plan
includes the following policy applicable to aesthetics:
l Policy 5.1-I-9: Improve the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayfront.
Appropriate departments of the City should study issues of access, safety, and protection of
surrounding neighborhoods in conjunction with enhanced access programs to ensure that greater
use of Sign Hill Park does not create unacceptable impacts on surrounding areas.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan, which was adopted in 1994 and most recently amended in 2016, sets
forth specific land use policies for the East of 101 Area. The East of 101 Area Plan provides that the
“land use and entitlement limitations (including, but not limited to, permitted uses and Floor Area
Ratios) of the Gateway Specific Plan are not affected by the Area Plan, and will continue in force in
the Gateway Area. … Developments on the Gateway site should conform to other polices of [the
East of 101 Area ] Plan, including the Design Guidelines in the Design Element …” As described in
Chapter 3, Project Description, applicable design-level policies of the Plan include all policies of the
design element, as well as Land Use Element policies LU-8a (Gateway Specific Plan uses), and LU-
8b (Gateway Specific Plan FAR), Specifically, Policy LU-8a states that the uses allowed in the
Gateway Specific Plan Area are those specified in the Gateway Specific Plan. In addition, Policy LU-
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-2 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
8b provides that the maximum FAR in the Gateway Specific Plan Area is that specified in the
Gateway Specific Plan. Per Policy IM-5, the Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by the land use
regulations of the East of 101 Area Plan.
Gateway Specific Plan
The Gateway Specific Plan covers the portion of the East of 101 Area from east of the Caltrain right-of-
way to the eastern boundary of the parcels along the east side of Gateway Boulevard and the area
between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue on the northern and southern boundaries. The
Specific Plan is “intended to provide for various commercial and research and development land uses
integrated by consistent development standards.” According to SSFMC Table 20.220.003 (Land Use
Regulations – Gateway Specific Plan District), office for professional or business purposes is permitted
within all districts within the Gateway Specific Plan Area (districts I, II, III, IV, and V). Research and
development is permitted in GSPD districts II, III, IV, and V.IV. The project site is within District IV. The
Gateway Specific Plan provides development policies which outline limitations on the type, size, and
height of the buildings developed within the Gateway Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Gateway
Specific Plan incorporates specific policies for signage, open space, landscaping, and lighting
requirements to ensure that buildings developed within the Specific Plan area adhere to the same
development policies and are generally similar in appearance, size, and structure.
South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
The City’s zoning ordinance prescribes development and site regulations that apply to development in
all districts. Brief descriptions of applicable sections of the zoning ordinance related to aesthetics are
provided below:
l Municipal Code Section 20.220, Gateway Specific Plan District: The standards of this section
apply to all new development within the Gateway Specific Plan area. The section establishes
the type, location, intensity and character of development that is permitted to take place
within the plan area, while allowing for creative and imaginative design concepts. The section
provides specific requirements regarding exterior building design, tree protection,
landscaping, as well as guidelines for project review, among many other aspects of
development.
l Municipal Code Section 20.300.008, Lighting and Illumination: The standards of this section
apply to all new development and additions that expand the existing floor area by 10 percent
or more. All exterior doors during the hours of darkness shall be illuminated with a minimum
of 1 foot candle of light for all nonresidential buildings. The standards also limit the maximum
height of a lighting fixture to 20 feet within 100 feet of any street frontage or 25 feet in any
other location for districts with the Business Commercial designation. In addition, all lighting
fixtures shall be shielded so as to not produce obtrusive glare on the public right-of-way or
adjoining properties.
l Municipal Code Section 20.480.002, Design Review—Applicability: Design review is required for
all projects that require a building permit that involve construction, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, alteration, or other improvements to the exterior of a structure or parking area,
except for projects developed in compliance with a previous design review approval.
l Municipal Code Section 20.480.003, Assignment of Design Review Responsibilities—Planning
Commission: The Planning Commission has design review authority for all projects requiring
Planning Commission approval and all new commercial, downtown, employment, mixed-use,
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-3 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
office, and multifamily developments. The Planning Commission shall also consider the Design
Review Board’s recommendations and shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
design review application.
l Municipal Code Section 20.480.006, Design Review Criteria: When conducting design review, the
Design Review Board, Chief Planner, Planning Commission, or City Council shall evaluate
applications to ensure that they conform to the policies of the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan, are consistent with any other policies or guidelines the City Council may adopt, and
satisfy specific criteria outlined in this code, such as those related to a building, structure or
signage; parking areas; open space, and pedestrian areas; and electrical and mechanical
equipment or works, among other criteria. Ultimately, the code states that a project’s design
features are reviewed in consideration of achieving a safe, efficient, and harmonious development,
and shadow patterns, and that components considered in design review shall include safety.
l Municipal Code Section 20.480.010, Appeals; Expiration, Extensions, and Modifications: A decision
made by the Chief Planner on a project shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission
either on appeal by the applicant or upon motion of the Planning Commission. If the Planning
Commission fails to make an order to review the Chief Planner’s determination at its next regular
meeting after the determination, then the Chief Planner’s determination shall be final. In addition,
for expirations, extension, and modifications, design review approval is effective and may only be
extended or modified as detailed in Chapter 20.450, Common Procedures.
4.10.1.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant aesthetics
impact if it would:
l Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
l Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
l Conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
l Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area.
4.10.1.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on aerial imagery from Google Earth and the List of
Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways.1 The proposed project was also evaluated
based on the potential impact to scenic vistas defined in the General Plan (i.e., Sign Hill Park and
the bayfront). In addition, existing sources of existing visual character and light and glare in the
vicinity of the project site were described and applicable regulations were reviewed.
1 California Department of Transportation. 2019. Scenic Highway System Lists—List of Eligible and Officially
Designated State Scenic Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-
and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed: February 27, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-4 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.1.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista. (Less than Significant)
The project site is not within a locally or state-designated scenic vista. The project site is not on or
near a designated vista point. The General Plan has identified Sign Hill Park (located 1 mile west of
the project site) and the bayfront (0.2 mile north of the project site) as resources within the City
where accessibility and visibility should be improved.
The project site is in a developed urban area consisting of commercial and office uses. San Bruno
Mountain, which contains Sign Hill Park, is a prominent visual landmark in South San Francisco.
The mountain can be seen from many locations throughout the City, including many portions of
the East of 101 Area. There are no designated scenic overlooks of the mountain in the vicinity of
the project site. The General Plan specifically states that the “accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill
Park” should be improved as part of Policy 5.1-I-9. The proposed project involves construction of a
148-foot-tall, seven-story building, which would partially obscure existing views of Sign Hill Park
and San Bruno Mountain as seen from the project site and vicinity. However, existing views of the
park and the mountain are partially obscured by existing buildings, trees, and topography. The
proposed project would not substantially worsen the existing partially obstructed views of the
park and mountain. Furthermore, the areas from which views of the park and the mountain may
be blocked by the proposed building are not prominent places where people gather to view the
park and the mountain. The General Plan specifically states that the “accessibility and visibility of
Sign Hill Park” should be improved as part of an implementing policy. Development of the
proposed project would be subject to design review to ensure that development of the project
supports General Plan policies. Therefore, effects on existing scenic vistas under the proposed
project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
Scenic Highway. (No Impact)
U.S. 101 is approximately 0.2 mile west of the project site and this segment of U.S. 101 is not an
officially designated or eligible State Scenic Highway.2 I-280 is the nearest officially designated
state scenic highway to the project site. I-280 is approximately 3 miles west of the project site;
therefore, the project site is not within the I-280 viewshed.
As such, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic
highway. No mitigation is required.
Impact AES-3: The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant)
Project construction would involve demolition work, earthmoving, grading, and tree removal. As a
result, construction equipment and vehicles, fencing, construction staging areas, and associated
debris would be present and visible on the project site in varying degrees, depending on the
construction phase and equipment being used over the duration of project construction
2 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-5 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
(approximately 18 months). This would temporarily change the visual character of the project site;
however, the visual effects of construction activities would be temporary and similar in nature to the
visual effects of other types of construction that occurs in the City. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality during construction
and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
The proposed project would include a total of 164 trees, accounting for the 175 existing trees to be
removed (including three heritage trees and one protected tree), the 52 existing trees to remain, and
the additional 112 trees to be planted. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this draft
EIR, the proposed project would comply with the City Municipal Code chapter 13.30 which includes
conditions applicable to protected trees. Therefore, the project would not result in adverse aesthetic
impacts related to tree or landscape removal. In addition, the proposed project would include
approximately 59,800 square feet of planted landscaped areas (not accounting for the proposed
biotreatment areas, discussed below) and approximately 53,700 square feet of hardscape
landscaped areas, for a total of 58,100 square feet of landscaped areas. For a discussion of potential
biological resource impacts associated with proposed tree removal and new landscaping, refer to
Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this draft EIR.
The project site is within the Gateway Campus, which is composed of three- to 16-story office and
R&D buildings in a heavily urbanized area. The project would increase the height and density of
development on the project site. The project site consists of an approximately 97-foot-tall, six-story
building at 701 Gateway Boulevard that would remain under the proposed project. The proposed
project involves construction of a 148-foot-tall, seven-story building on the same site. The proposed
building would be constructed of contemporary materials and detailing, including white, light-blue,
and dark-blue vision glass; solid aluminum panels; perforated aluminum panels; and metal railings
and columns. Refer to Figure 3-7, Conceptual Elevations (North and South), and Figure 3-8,
Conceptual Elevations (East and West), in Chapter 3, Project Description, for elevations for the
proposed building. As discussed in Section 4.10.5, Land Use, of this draft EIR, the proposed project
would maintain the existing zoning designation of Zone IV under the Gateway Specific Plan District
(GSPD). The existing zoning allows for development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.25, or
a maximum of 402,930 total square feet, within the project site. The existing building at 701
Gateway Boulevard is approximately 170,235 square feet. Based on the zoning, 232,695 square feet
of unrealized FAR remains available for the project site, and the proposed project would utilize a
portion of that unrealized FAR. The total proposed FAR for the site, including both the existing
building at 701 Gateway Boulevard and the proposed building at 751 Gateway Boulevard, would be
1.18. From a visual perspective, the increased FAR would not result in a significant aesthetic impact
because the proposed project would be within the 1.25 maximum allowable FAR. No substantial
change to the existing visual character on the project site or within the surrounding area would
occur. In addition, the project, as proposed, is generally consistent with the General Plan (refer to
Section 4.10.5, Land Use, of this draft EIR). Development within the project site would also be
required to conform with applicable design guidelines in the East of 101 Area Plan, such as those
described above in Section 4.10.1.1, Regulatory Framework, and would be subject to the City’s design
review process, ensuring that the project would not adversely affect the visual quality of the area.
Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions,
which will be attached to the entitlements for the proposed project, including Condition No. 21,
which requires screening HVAC equipment from public view, and Condition No. 22, which requires
permanent maintenance of facilities (e.g., structures, paving, landscaping, etc.). In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with any project-specific conditions of approval.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-6 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality during operation and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
Impact AES-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. (Less than
Significant)
The project site is in an office, R&D, and industrial area with no adjacent residential uses. Residential
uses are sensitive to light and glare impacts, particularly from nearby non-residential sources.
Existing sources of light and glare in the area are typical of those in the urban environment
including, but not limited to, interior and exterior building lights, streetlights, parking lot lights,
security lights, vehicular headlights, and reflective building surfaces and windows. The proposed
project would increase the active building area within the project site and would increase the
amount of nighttime lighting and glare. Specifically, the proposed project would include wayfinding
lighting on the project site (e.g., along walkways and driveways, at entrances, in surface parking
areas). Outside lighting would be comparable in brightness to ambient lighting in the surrounding
area. Increased lighting on the project site, relative to the existing outdoor lighting, would increase
overall illumination in the area. Exterior building materials would consist primarily of
contemporary materials and detailing, including white, light-blue, and dark-blue vision glass; solid
aluminum panels; perforated aluminum panels; and metal railings and columns. However, the
proposed project would be consistent with existing office and R&D uses in the vicinity as well as the
East of 101 Area Plan and would not substantially affect overall ambient light levels in the already-
existing urban context of the project site. In addition, the proposed project would be required to
comply with the City’s standard conditions, which will be attached to the entitlements for the
proposed project, including Condition No. 28, which requires compliance with the South San
Francisco Municipal Code chapter 20.300.008 (Lighting and Illumination) and requires that there be
no objectionable or hazardous illumination of adjacent properties or streets. The proposed project
would also be required to comply with any project-specific conditions of approval. Furthermore, the
design of the exterior façade of the proposed building would be subject to the City’s design review
process, ensuring that the project would not create a substantial new source of light or glare in the
area surrounding the project site. All project signage would be subject to receipt of a sign permit (as
well as design review for signs of 25 square feet or more), including review of any illuminated signs
for compliance with the applicable requirements of Chapter 20.360 of the City’s Municipal Code
governing light, glare, and shielding for illuminated signs. Therefore, the project would not create a
new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area. Given the densely developed nature of the project vicinity, and the fact that light and glare
introduced by the proposed project would be negligible relative to existing conditions, the impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-AES-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on aesthetics.
(Less than Significant)
Aesthetics are dependent upon the location of users, the breadth of the viewshed, and the
contiguousness of scenic vistas and views. The cumulative geographic context for aesthetics is the
immediate vicinity of the project site (i.e., the parcels adjacent to the project site). The cumulative
projects located within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5,
Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-7 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The nearest cumulative project, the project at 475 Eccles Avenue (Cumulative Project No. 16), is
located approximately 630 feet east of the project site. The project at 475 Eccles Avenue would
involve new office/R&D buildings consistent with the existing character of the surrounding area.
The remaining cumulative projects would also involve new office, R&D, and hotel uses that would
be consistent with the existing character of the overall surrounding area and the East of 101 Area.
Many of the cumulative projects would include visual enhancements of their own, such as new
pedestrian and bicycle improvements, as well as open space and landscape improvements. In
addition, the cumulative projects would be subject to the same South San Francisco Municipal
Code compliance and City design review processes as the project, thereby ensuring that no, or
limited, light and glare impacts would result from development. Furthermore, no designated
historic districts or neighborhoods are present that would be affected by the development of the
cumulative projects. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative
aesthetics impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
4.10.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources
4.10.2.1 Regulatory Framework
There are no federal, state, regional, or local laws, regulations, plans, or policies related to
agricultural and forest resources in connection with implementation of the proposed project.
4.10.2.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
agricultural and forest resources impact if it would:
l Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
l Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract;
l Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104[g]).
l Result in a loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use; or
l Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to
non-forest use.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-8 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.2.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on the San Mateo County Important Farmland map
generated by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,3
the San Mateo County Williamson Act Parcels GIS data,4 the General Plan, and aerial imagery from
Google Earth.
4.10.2.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact AG-1: The proposed project would not convert designated Farmland under the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, nor would it conflict with any existing
agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, nor would it involve any changes to the
environment that would result in the conversion of designated Farmland. (No Impact)
The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, maps important
farmland, including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. Agricultural land is rated according to soil
quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The California
Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the project
site as “Urban and Built-up.”5 The project site does not contain any designated Farmland. Thus,
the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. The project site is in the Gateway Specific Plan
Area, which includes a variety of commercial and R&D land uses, and is zoned GSPD, which is not for
agricultural use. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any agricultural zoning. In
addition, no land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site is zoned for or used as
agriculture. There are no Williamson Act contracts for land within the East of 101 Area.6 Thus, the
proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract or involve other changes in the
existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use. Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would have no
impact on agricultural resources. No mitigation is required.
3 California Department of Conservation. 2019. San Mateo County Important Farmland. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanMateo.aspx. Accessed: February 18, 2020.
4 San Mateo County Open GIS Data. 2016. Williamson Act Parcels. Available: https://data-
smcmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/williamson-act-parcels?geometry=-122.772%2C37.513%2C-
121.905%2C37.704. Accessed: April 24, 2020.
5 Urban and Built-up land is defined as land with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres or six
structures per 10 acres on the 2018 San Mateo County Important Farmland map as well as land used for
residential, industrial, and commercial purposes; institutional facilities; cemeteries; airports; golf courses;
sanitary landfills; sewage treatment; and water control structures.
6 The Williamson Act is a California law enacted in 1965 that provides property tax relief to owners of farmland
and open space land in exchange for a 10-year agreement that the land will not be developed or converted into
another use.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-9 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Impact AG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, nor
would it result in the loss or conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. (No Impact)
There is no timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production on the project site.7 None of
the trees currently growing on or adjacent to the project site are managed for a public benefit, and
therefore the project site is not “forestland.”8 Thus, the proposed project would not result in the
loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Furthermore, the project
would not conflict with any existing zoning or forestland or timberland use or involve any changes
to the environment that could result in the conversion of forestland or timberland. Thus, there
would be no impact with respect to forest land or timberland. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-AG-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on
agricultural or forest resources. (No Impact)
The cumulative geographic context for agricultural resources is the immediate vicinity of the
project site (i.e., the parcels adjacent to the project site). The cumulative projects located within
approximately 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative
Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
The immediate vicinity of the project site is mapped as “Urban and Built Up Land” by the
California Department of Conservation. There are no parcels in the East of 101 Area or the
Gateway Specific Plan planning area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance, nor are there parcels under Williamson Act contract.
There is no timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the East of 101 Area or the
Gateway Specific Plan planning area where most of the cumulative projects are located. For these
reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative agricultural and forest
resources impact. There would be no cumulative impact on agricultural and forest resources. No
mitigation is required.
7 According to Public Resources Code section 4526 and California Government Code section 51104(g),
“timberland” is defined as land, other than that owned by the federal government or designated by the State Board
of Forestry and Fire Protection as Experimental Forestland, that is available for and capable of growing a crop of
trees of any commercial species to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.
8 According to Public Resources Code section 12220[g], “forestland” is land that can support a 10 percent native
tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions and allow management of one or more
forest resources, including resources with timber, aesthetic, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality,
recreational, or other public benefits.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-10 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.10.3.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and
Solid Waste Act
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
established an EPA-administered program to regulate the generation, transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as “Superfund,” was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (42 USC 103)
provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements
concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for liability of persons
responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and establishes a trust fund to provide for
cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enabled revision of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (CFR title 40, part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures
needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or
contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) mission is to ensure the safety and
health of American workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and
education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety
and health. OSHA establishes and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and
employees through technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in
29 CFR 1910.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act, which came into law on October 11, 1976, authorized the EPA to
secure information on all new and existing chemical substances and control those substances with
unreasonable risks related to public health and the environment.
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100–185)
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations cover all aspects of hazardous materials
packaging, handling, and transportation. Some of the topics covered include parts 107 (Hazard
Materials Program), 130 (Oil Spill Prevention and Response), 172 (Emergency Response), 173
(Packaging Requirements), 174 (Rail Transportation), 176 (Vessel Transportation), 177 (Highway
Transportation), 178 (Packaging Specifications), and 180 (Packaging Maintenance).
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-11 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991. It unified California’s
environmental authority in a single cabinet-level agency and brought the California Air Resources
Board, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and Department of
Pesticide Regulation under one agency. These agencies were placed under the CalEPA “umbrella” for
the protection of human health and the environment to ensure the coordinated deployment of state
resources. Their mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment and ensure public
health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC, a department of CalEPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste,
cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste
produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the federal
RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily division 20, chapters 6.5 through 10.6,
and title 22, division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage,
transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.
USC 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste
facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites
listed by the State Water Resources Control Board as having underground storage tank leaks or a
discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local
regulatory agencies of sites with a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
Hazardous Waste Control Act (section 25100 et seq.)
DTSC is responsible for enforcing the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety
Code section 25100 et seq.), a framework under which hazardous wastes are managed in California.
The law provides for the development of a state hazardous waste program that administers and
implements the provisions of the federal RCRA cradle-to-grave waste management system in
California. It also provides for the designation of California-only hazardous waste and development
of standards that are equal to or, in some cases, more stringent than federal requirements.
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
(California Health and Safety Code, chapter 6.11, sections 25404–25404.9) provides authority to the
Certified Unified Program Agency. The Certified Unified Program Agency for the project area is the
San Mateo County Health.9
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits,
inspections, and enforcement activities of hazardous materials programs, including the HazMat
9 San Mateo County Health. 2020. Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Available:
https://www.smchealth.org/hazardous-materials-cupa. Accessed: April 27, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-12 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Business Plan Program, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, Underground Storage
Tank Program, Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and Hazardous Waste Generator Program, and
incident response.
California Code of Regulations, Title 8—Industrial Relations
Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from
both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (known as Cal/OSHA) and the federal OSHA are the agencies responsible for ensuring
worker safety in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and
enforcing standards for safe workplaces and work practices. These standards would apply to
construction activities.
California Labor Code (division 5, parts 1, 6, 7, and 7.5)
The California Labor Code is a collection of regulations for the workplace that ensure appropriate
training on the use and handling of hazardous materials as well as the operation of equipment and
machines that use, store, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials. Division 5, part 1, chapter 2.5,
ensures that employees who are in charge of handling hazardous materials are appropriately
trained and informed with respect to the materials they handle. Division 5, part 7, ensures that
employees who work with volatile flammable liquids are outfitted with appropriate safety gear and
clothing.
Regional
County of San Mateo Emergency Operations Plan
The 2015 County of San Mateo Emergency Operations Plan establishes policies and procedures and
assigns responsibilities to ensure effective management of emergency response operations within
the San Mateo County Operational Area. The emergency management organization in San Mateo
County will identify potential threats to life, property and the environment, and develop plans and
procedures to protect, prevent and mitigate those assets from potential hazards (e.g., hazardous
materials spills).
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
State law requires Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) to prepare and adopt an Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for each public use and military airport within their jurisdiction.
Further, ALUCs are required to review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and
airport operators within each Commission’s jurisdiction. SFO is located 2 miles south of the project
site. The 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared for SFO has four
primary areas of concern:
l Aircraft Noise Impact Reduction – To reduce the potential number of future airport area
residents who could be exposed to noise impacts from airport and aircraft operations.
l Safety of Persons on the Ground and in Aircraft in Flight – To minimize the potential number of
future residents and land use occupants exposed to hazards related to aircraft operations and
accidents.
l Height Restrictions/Airspace Protection – To protect the navigable airspace around the Airport
for the safe and efficient operation of aircraft in flight.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-13 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l Overflight Notification – To establish an area within which aircraft flights to and from the
Airport occur frequently enough and at a low enough altitude to be noticeable by sensitive
residents. Within this area, real estate disclosure notices shall be required, pursuant to state law.
The 2012 SFO ALUCP contains airport/land use compatibility policies and criteria that apply to all
land uses except those considered as existing land uses. ALUCs were given authority to: (1) specify
how land near airports is to be used, based on safety and noise compatibility considerations; (2)
develop height restrictions for new development to protect airspace in the vicinity of the airport;
and (3) establish construction standards for new buildings near airports, including sound insulation
requirements. As identified in the 2012 SFO ALUCP, the project site is located within the Federal
Aviation Regulation Part 77 sphere of influence, which is the boundary established to regulate
obstructions to airspace navigation, including building heights.
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic
development of the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a
basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with
the City’s plans and policy standards. The General Plan contains a Health and Safety Element, which
acknowledges and mitigates the risks posed by hazards (e.g., hazardous materials and waste). The
General Plan includes the following policies applicable to hazards and hazardous materials:
l Policy 8.3-G-1: Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle
those materials that are used to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
l Policy 8.3-G-2: Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and
transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all
applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use, and handling of hazardous
substances, as established by federal (EPA), state (DTSC, RWQCB, Cal/OSHA, CalEPA), and local
(County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations.
l Policy 8.3-I-2: Continue to maintain hazardous waste regulations in the City’s zoning ordinance.
The existing zoning ordinance and General Plan prohibits intensive industrial facilities and
industries that produce substantial amounts of hazardous waste, prohibits industrial uses
involving the permanent storage of hazardous materials, and limits lighter industrial uses that
produce hazardous waste, such as auto repair and auto painting businesses, to the Light
Industrial land use classification.
l Policy 8.3-I-4: Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials.
These routes should not pass through residential areas or other sensitive areas. Specific time
periods for transport should be established to reduce the impact and accident risk during peak
travel periods.
l Policy 8.6-G-1: Use the City’s Emergency Response Plan as the guide for emergency management
in South San Francisco.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-14 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.3.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
hazards and hazardous materials impact if it would:
l Create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
l Create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment;
l Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
l Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard for the public or
the environment;
l For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area;
l Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan; or
l Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires.
4.10.3.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on the phase I environmental site assessment
prepared for the project site, unless otherwise noted.10 The scope of the phase I environmental
site assessment included reviewing and analyzing project site conditions to identify any
recognized environmental conditions (RECs). Database information is dynamic and can change
over time, including changes in site status and new sites can be added to databases. As database
information in the phase I environmental site assessment is from 2017, a supplemental
environmental database search was also conducted in 2020 by Environmental Data Resources to
support the hazards and hazardous materials analysis.11
10 Ramboll Environ US Corporation. 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 701 Gateway Boulevard. Final.
1690006158. South San Francisco, CA. Prepared for: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.
11 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2020. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck. Inquiry Number
6007239.2s, dated March 12, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-15 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.3.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
(Less than Significant)
Construction
Project construction would involve routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials
such as solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking. Such transport, use, and disposal must be
compliant with applicable regulations, such as the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.
Although small amounts of solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would be transported, used,
and disposed of during the construction phase, these materials are typically used in construction
projects and would not represent the transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials.
Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during
construction and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
The proposed project would include operation of an office and R&D building. Depending on the
nature of the proposed R&D uses, the possibility exists for hazards related to the handling of
biomedical wastes and hazardous chemicals to occur. R&D tenants that would handle these types
of materials would be required to refer to the state and federal lists of regulated substances
available through the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Chemicals
on the list pose a threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly
toxic, flammable, or explosive. If the handling of hazardous materials would be required during
R&D uses, the facility would be required to adhere to all applicable state and local regulations,
seek consultation with the SMCEHD, and apply for applicable permits. In addition, registration of
the materials through the SMCEHD Hazardous Material Business Plan Program would be required
to ensure safe and responsible handling. The proposed office uses would involve the use of
hazardous chemicals that are typical in office settings (e.g., toners, paints, kitchen and restroom
cleaners, other maintenance materials). Landscape maintenance on the project site would require
the use a wide variety of commercial products that are formulated with hazardous materials (e.g.,
fuels, cleaners and degreasers, solvents, paints, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and
pesticides/herbicides). Such materials are considered common and are unlikely to be stored or
used in large quantities. Any spills involving these materials would be small and localized and
would be cleaned up as they occur.
The City requires that building spaces be designed to handle the intended office and R&D uses,
with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance with the
guidelines laid out in the City’s Fire Code. Compliance with state and local regulations would
ensure that buildings are equipped with safety measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc., to
minimize potential impacts of the presence of hazardous materials. The City further requires that
upon completion of the proposed building, occupancy is not allowed until a final inspection is
made by the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) for conformance of all building
systems with the City’s Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association requirements. The
inspection includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans. Finally, compliance with the
California Department of Transportation regulations would ensure that all necessary safety
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-16 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
precautions would be taken during transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the
project. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during
operation and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant)
The following is a summary of the findings of the phase I environmental site assessment:
l Residual heavy metal contamination in soil was identified at the 701 Gateway Boulevard site
and characterized as a controlled REC12 in the phase I environmental site assessment. However,
because a “no further action” finding (subject to controls) was granted for the site, the
controlled REC is not considered to be an ongoing contamination concern at the project site.
Additional details (identified in the 2020 EDR) are provided under Homart Development
Corporation/Edwards Wire and Rope/Bethlehem Steel in Table 4.10-1.
l No other RECs were identified within the project site.
l Asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, mold, and radon were not identified as
significant concerns.
The 2020 supplemental database search identified multiple listings associated with the project site,
including Solstice Neurosciences on the Facility Index System/Facility Registry System and
Emissions Inventory Data databases, Broadway Real Estate Services on the Facility Index
System/Facility Registry System database, and Divco West Real Estate Services on the San Mateo
County Business Inventory database. The project site was identified in the listings as having a
history of hazardous materials handling and being part of a Hazardous Material Business Plan
Program in the San Mateo County Business Inventory database and permitted for air emissions by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the Emissions Inventory database. No violations or
releases are associated with any of the listings within the project site.
The 2020 supplemental database search also identified listings associated with multiple off-site
properties. Table 4.10-1 identifies hazardous materials sites within 0.25 mile of the project site with
a history of releases.
12 The American Society for Testing and Materials defines a controlled REC as the result of a “past release of
hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority (e.g., as evidenced by the issuance of a “no further action” letter or equivalent or meeting risk-
based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to
remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., property use restrictions, activity and use
limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls)…”
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-17 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 4.10-1. Hazardous Materials Sites within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site
Site Address
Distance
from the
Project1 Database(s)2 Site Status Summary
Gateway of
Pacific, Elan
Pharmaceutical,
Aesculap
1000
Gateway
Boulevard
0.03 mile
to the NE
CPS-SLIC, CERS,
RCRA-LQG, FINDS,
ECHO, LUST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Site. Status listed as open and
undergoing site assessment
activities. Tetrachloroethylene listed
as contaminant of concern. Soil and
groundwater impacts. Currently
undergoing soil vapor extraction.
According to a 2017 soil and
groundwater management plan,
“Based on the analytical results
(sample results did not exceed
applicable thresholds), site
groundwater would very likely be
able to be discharge to a sanitary
sewer system during construction.”
Based on a review of the site status,
the site is not considered to pose a
significant potential impact on the
environment.
Homart
Development
Corporation/
Edwards Wire
and Rope/
Bethlehem Steel
480
Industrial
Way
(address
no longer
exists) and
801
Gateway
Boulevard
0.04 mile
to the
WNW
Voluntary Cleanup Site. Investigation
and remediation activities occurred
at the Homart property at the
intersection of Gateway Boulevard
and Oyster Point Boulevard. An
unspecified quantity of contaminated
soil was removed and the site was
certified in November of 1983. Later
classified as an operation and
maintenance site. Site contaminants
included polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and lead in soil and
groundwater. After a 1988
investigation, the site was considered
a “no further action” site. Although
soil contamination remains onsite,
the 2017 phase I environmental site
assessment considered the site a
controlled REC. The site was not
considered an ongoing
contamination concern (assuming
the current land use does not
change). Based on a review of the site
status, the site is not considered to
pose a significant potential impact on
the environment.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-18 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Site Address
Distance
from the
Project1 Database(s)2 Site Status Summary
U.S. Steel
Corporation
105 Oyster
Point
Boulevard
0.06 mile
to the
NNE
ENVIROSTOR, SAN
MATEO CO. BI,
HIST CORTESE,
RCRA
NONGEN/NLR
Historical DTSC Site. Site listed with
organic liquid (containing metals),
affected soil, and asbestos-containing
materials. Based on a review of the
site status, the site is not considered
to pose a significant potential impact
on the environment.
U.S. 101/Oyster
Point Boulevard
U.S. 101 at
Oyster
Point
Boulevard
0.11 mile
to the
WNW
ENVIROSTOR “No Further Action” Site. Lead and
total petroleum hydrocarbons above
applicable screening levels in the
stored soil. The California
Department of Transportation, in
preparation for construction of the
Oyster Point Boulevard overcrossing,
removed lead-contaminated soil
from a ditch draining to San
Francisco Bay. Based on a review of
the site status, the site is not
considered to pose a significant
potential impact on the environment.
Thermo Fisher
Scientific
180 Oyster
Point
Boulevard
0.14 mile
to the
ENE
LUST, SWEEPS
UST, SAN MATEO
CO. BI, EMI,
HAZNET, CERS,
HWTS
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Site. The site had gasoline-impacted
groundwater. Case closed by San
Mateo County Local Oversight
Program in 2009. Based on a review
of the site status, the site is not
considered to pose a significant
potential impact on the environment.
Oyster Point
(former U.S. Steel
facility) – The
Cove Property
Cross
Oyster
Point at
U.S. 101
0.16 mile
to the
NNE
CPS-SLIC, CERS Site listed as open; undergoing long-
term management. Site listed as
containing diesel, lead, PCBs,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons,
waste oil–affected groundwater,
sediments, and soils. Contaminated
sediments in San Francisco Bay have
been remediated/capped. In 2009,
the RWQCB adopted Order No. R2-
2009-0063, which rescinded Site
Cleanup Requirements Order N0. 00-
125. Although remediation is
complete, the case remains open to
address soil management during
redevelopment. Based on a review of
the site status, the site is not
considered to pose a significant
potential impact on the environment.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-19 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Site Address
Distance
from the
Project1 Database(s)2 Site Status Summary
Federal Express 900
Gateway
Boulevard
0.17 mile
to the E
LUST, HIST
CORTESE, WDS,
CERS, SAN MATEO
CO. BI, HAZNET,
NPDES, CIWQS,
HWTS, RCRA-SQG,
FINDS, ECHO,
RCRA
NONGEN/NLR,
UST, SWEEPS UST
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Site. The site had gasoline-impacted
groundwater. Case closed by San
Mateo County Local Oversight
Program in 2004. Based on a review
of the site status, the site is not
considered to pose a significant
potential impact on the environment.
Malcolm Drilling 200 Oyster
Point
Boulevard
0.2 mile
to the
ENE
LUST, CPS-SLIC,
EMI, SWEEPS UST,
DEED, SAN MATEO
CO. BI, CERS
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Site. The site featured chromium-
affected groundwater. Case closed by
San Mateo County Local Oversight
Program in 2006. Based on a review
of the site status, the site is not
considered to pose a significant
potential impact on the environment.
Levitz Furniture
(former)
900
Dubuque
Avenue
0.2 mile
to the
WNW
CPS-SLIC, CERS Cleanup Program Site. The site had
lead, nickel, gasoline, heating oil/fuel
oil impacts. Media not disclosed. Case
closed by San Mateo County Local
Oversight Program in 2018. Based on
a review of the site status, the site is
not considered to pose a significant
potential impact on the environment.
Grand Roebling
Property/Tularik
317
Roebling
Road
0.2 mile
to the S
LUST, CPS-SLIC,
RCRA-SQG, SAN
MATEO CO. BI
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Site. The site featured
perchloroethylene-affected
groundwater. Case closed by San
Mateo County Local Oversight
Program in 2019. Based on a review
of the site status, the site is not
considered to pose a significant
potential impact on the environment.
Source: Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2020. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck. Inquiry Number
6007239.2s, dated March 12, 2020.
Notes:
1 NE = northeast; WNW = west, northwest; NNE = north, northeast; ENE = east, northeast; E = east; and S = south.
2 CPS-SLIC = Cleanup Program Sites – Spills Leaks Investigations and Cleanups; CERS = California Environmental
Reporting System; RCRA-LQG = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Large Quantity Generator; RCRA-SQG =
RCRA - Small Quantity Generators; LUST = Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Report; ENVIROSTOR = EnviroStor
Database; SAN MATEO CO. BI = San Mateo County Business Inventory; SEMS-ARCHIVE = Superfund Enterprise
Management System Archive; VCP = Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties; HIST CAL-SITES = Calsites Database;
SWEEPS UST = Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System; RCRA NonGen / NLR = RCRA - Non
Generators / No Longer Regulated; FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System; ECHO = Enforcement &
Compliance History Information; CA BOND EXP. PLAN = Bond Expenditure Plan; EMI = Emissions Inventory Data;
HAZNET = Facility and Manifest Data; HIST CORTESE = Hazardous Waste & Substance Site List; NPDES: NPDES
Permits Listing; CIWQS = California Integrated Water Quality System; HWTS = Hazardous Waste Tracking System;
and DEED = Deed Restriction Listing.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-20 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Development on or near Former Hazardous Materials Handling Facilities
No RECs other than the controlled REC have been identified within the project site. As part of the
regulatory controls for the controlled REC, the contaminated area was capped. No construction
activity would occur in the portion of the project site impacted by the controlled REC other than
landscaping installation. This work would not penetrate the cap. The contractor would conduct
verification boring before starting construction to confirm the depth where REC is capped.
In addition, due to environmental conditions (as described in the Site Status Summary column of
Table 4.10-1), the proposed project would not have the potential to exacerbate potential risks to the
environment associated with previously identified hazardous materials sites within 0.25 mile of the
project site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving releases of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Hazardous Building Materials
The existing office building at 701 Gateway Boulevard would remain under the proposed project. The
proposed project would not include the demolition of any existing buildings and would only require
demolition of an existing surface parking lot. Therefore, demolition activities would not likely expose
workers and surrounding receptors to asbestos, lead, mercury, or PCBs. In the unlikely event that
these hazardous materials are exposed, the handling of PCBs is regulated under 24 CFR and handling
of PCBs, asbestos, lead, and mercury is regulated under 22 CCR. With compliance with standard local,
state, and federal regulatory requirements, impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous
materials during demolition would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Contaminated Groundwater
No dewatering would be required during project construction. Therefore, construction activities
would not have the potential to result in the release of contaminated groundwater and this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of
an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant)
There are no existing schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest school is Martin
Elementary School, approximately 0.8 mile west of the project site. Two existing day care centers
are within 0.25 mile of the project site: a day care center at the One and Two Tower Place Project
and the Gateway Child Development Center Peninsula. The day care center at One and Two Tower
Place Project is approximately 0.25 mile north of the project site and is part of a baseline project
(Cumulative Project No. 6) discussed in Section 4.1.4, Approach to Baseline Setting, of this draft EIR
and shown in Figure 4.1-1. The Gateway Child Development Center Peninsula is approximately
1,000 feet (0.19 mile) from the main project construction areas and 670 feet (0.13 mile) from the
nearest project construction area, which would be at the southern terminus of the site and include
repaving and curb work, as well as some landscaping activities. The proposed project would include
operation of an office and R&D building. As discussed under Impact HAZ-1, depending on the
nature of the proposed R&D uses, the possibility exists for hazardous emissions related to
biomedical wastes and hazardous chemicals. The facility would be required to adhere to all
applicable state and local regulations, seek consultation with the SMCEHD, and apply for
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-21 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
applicable permits. In addition, registration of the materials through the SMCEHD Hazardous
Material Business Plan Program would be required to ensure safe and responsible handling. The
proposed project would not involve any other uses that would involve hazardous emissions (e.g.,
heavy industrial uses). Therefore, the project may emit hazardous emissions or involve handling
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school or day care centers, but would be required to adhere to all applicable state and
local regulations and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, create a significant hazard for the public or the environment. (Less than Significant)
As discussed under Impact HAZ-2, the project site is listed on the following databases: Facility Index
System/Facility Registry System, Emissions Inventory Data, and the San Mateo County Business
Inventory database. The project site was identified in the listings as having a history of hazardous
materials handling and being part of a Hazardous Material Business Plan Program in the San Mateo
County Business Inventory database and permitted for air emissions by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District in the Emissions Inventory database. However, the project site is not included
on the Government Code section 65962.5 hazardous materials sites list (known as the Cortese list)
and was not identified with a history of releases or violations with potential to impact the project.
The project site is located near multiple closed cleanup sites. However, no active cleanup sites are
located within the project site or within 0.25 mile of the project site. Nonetheless, as described
under Impact HAZ-2, exposure of known or unknown subsurface conditions could occur, but with
implementation of standard local, state, and federal regulatory requirements that would ensure the
proper handling of potentially hazardous subsurface soils and groundwater, this impact would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact HAZ-5: The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area. (Less than Significant)
SFO is approximately 2 miles south of the project site. The project site is located within the Federal
Aviation Regulation Part 77 sphere of influence and within the boundaries of Airport Influence Area
(AIA) A and B of the SFO ALUCP. In general, height limitations and restrictions in the East of 101
Area are defined by the SFO Airport AIA. Development on the project site is limited to 300 feet in
height by elevation, according to the 2012 SFO ALUCP,13 but may be further restricted after
notification and consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under CFR part 77.9.
The proposed project would involve construction of a 148-foot-tall, seven-story building. After
consultation with the FAA, it is expected that the proposed project would be compatible with the
SFO ALUCP. The proposed building would be below the established height limits and would not pose
a safety hazard or generate excessive noise for people working in the project area. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
13 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-22 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Impact HAZ-6: The proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less
than Significant)
The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access
to the site or surrounding area. The project would demolish a surface parking lot and construct a
seven-story office and R&D building with parking. The existing access to the project site (two
driveways on Gateway Boulevard, one driveway from the internal access drive south of the building at
951 Gateway Boulevard, and one driveway on an unnamed street that connects Poletti Way to
Gateway Boulevard) would be retained under the proposed project. Emergency vehicle access to the
project site would be provided by Gateway Boulevard and the parking lot to be constructed north of
the proposed building. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to comply with the
California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements that require on site access for
emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval.
During project construction, traffic levels would increase minimally, which is not expected to degrade
traffic operations. Furthermore, emergency response access during the construction period would not
be impeded significantly. The project would not involve development of a structure that would impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. No streets would be closed, rerouted, or altered substantially. The 731 net new
employees (refer to Section 4.10.7, Population and Housing, of this draft EIR) may slightly increase
demand during an evacuation. Therefore, the project would not interfere with the County of San
Mateo’s Emergency Operations Plan or any evacuation route. Adequate access to the project site and
surrounding area would be maintained. The City further requires that upon completion of the
proposed building, occupancy is not allowed until a final inspection is made by the SSFFD, which
includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not
impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact HAZ-7: The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (No Impact)
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the City,
including the project site, is in a non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (non-VHFHSZ).14 Because
the project site is in a developed urban area with no nearby wildland areas, there would be no
impact. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-HAZ-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hazards
and hazardous materials. (Less than Significant)
The cumulative geographic context for hazards and hazardous materials is the project site and its
immediate vicinity (i.e., the parcels adjacent to the project site). The cumulative projects located
within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to
Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
14 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in
SRA. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-
codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed: February 19, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-23 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Cumulative development in the immediate vicinity of the project site would be required to comply
with all regulations related to hazardous materials and, thus, the project, in combination with
related development, would not result in significant cumulative hazards or hazardous materials
impacts. In addition, development of cumulative projects in contaminated areas would require
remediation in compliance with state and federal environmental regulations, consequently
improving overall environmental quality. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination
with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant
cumulative hazards or hazardous materials impact. The cumulative impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
4.10.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10.4.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act
Several sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA) pertain to regulating waters of the United States.
The CWA is the primary federal law for regulating water quality in the United States and the basis
for several state and local laws in the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water
pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA regulates discharges
of pollutants and sets minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several
mechanisms are used to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA.
The EPA is the overarching authority for protecting the quality of waters of the United States.
However, the EPA has delegated administration and enforcement of certain aspects of the CWA in
California to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCBs. The State of
California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations and adopted
water quality standards to protect beneficial uses of waters of the state, as required by section
303(d) of the CWA. CWA requirements are addressed through development of a 303(d)/305(b)
integrated report, which addresses both an update to the 303(d) list and a 305(b) assessment of
statewide water quality. The 2014/2016 California Integrated Report was approved by EPA on
April 6, 2018.
Executive Order 11988
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for managing the 100-year
floodplain (i.e., areas subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year). A
flood insurance rate map is an official FEMA map that can be used to delineate both Special Flood
Hazard Areas (the 100-year floodplain) and Flood Risk Premium Zones in a community. Under
Executive Order 11988, FEMA requires local governments that are covered by the National Flood
Insurance Program to pass and enforce a floodplain management ordinance that specifies
minimum requirements for any construction within the 100-year floodplain. FEMA administers
the National Flood Insurance Program, which includes floodplain management as well as flood
hazard mapping functions and provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply
with FEMA regulations to limit development in floodplains.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-24 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) was established and
implemented by the SWRCB, the primary state agency with responsibility for protecting the
quality of the state’s surface and groundwater supplies, or waters of the state. Waters of the state
are defined more broadly than waters of the United States (i.e., any surface water or groundwater,
including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state). This includes waters in both natural
and artificial channels. It also includes all surface waters that are not waters of the United States
or non-jurisdictional wetlands, which are essentially distinguished by whether they are navigable
or have a direct hydrologic surface connection to navigable waters. Non-navigable, isolated, and
intrastate waters fall under the jurisdiction of only the Porter-Cologne Act and not the CWA.
The Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the SWRCB to draft state policies regarding water quality. The
act requires projects that discharge, or propose to discharge, wastes that could affect water
quality to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. The Porter-Cologne Act
also requires the SWRCB or a RWQCB to adopt basin plans for the protection of water quality.
NPDES Permit Requirements
The 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act established the NPDES permit
program to control discharges of pollutants from any point source. The 1987 amendments to the
CWA created a new section that was devoted to stormwater permitting (section 402). The phase I
NPDES stormwater program regulates stormwater discharges from industrial facilities, large- and
medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) (i.e., those serving more than
100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb 5 or more acres of land. CWA section 402
mandates permits for municipal stormwater discharges, which are regulated under the NPDES
General Permit for MS4s. The discharge of stormwater runoff from the MS4 in San Mateo County is
permitted under the San Francisco Bay MRP (Order No. R2-2015-0049; NPDES Permit No.
CAS612008), which is discussed further below.
NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit
Most construction activities that disturb 1 acre of land or more are required to obtain coverage
under the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities (Construction General Permit). The
SWRCB has issued a statewide Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAR000002, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). Construction activities
subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the
ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, that result in soil disturbances of at least 1 acre of total
land area. The Construction General Permit requires the applicant to file a notice of intent to
discharge stormwater and prepare and implement the SWPPP, which includes a site map and a
description of proposed construction activities, along with a demonstration of compliance with
relevant local ordinances and regulations, and an overview of the BMPs that would be
implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharges of other construction-related pollutants that
could contaminate nearby water resources.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) is a comprehensive three-bill
package that Governor Jerry Brown signed into California state law in September 2014. The
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act provides a framework for sustainable management of
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-25 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention only if necessary
to protect the resource. The plan is intended to ensure a reliable groundwater water supply for
California for years to come. SGMA requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies (GSA), which are required to adopt groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to manage the
sustainability of groundwater basins. The adoption of a GSP is required for all high- and medium-
priority basins as identified by DWR or submit an alternative to a GSP. SGMA also requires
governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring
groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge.
California Safe Drinking Water Act
The California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the State Water Resources Control Board to
administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health,
including, but not limited to, conducting research, studies, and demonstration programs relating
to the provision of a dependable, safe supply of drinking water, enforcing the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act, adopting implementing regulations, and conducting studies and
investigations to assess the quality of water in private domestic water supplies. Under the act, the
implementing regulations are required to include, but are not limited to, monitoring of
contaminants and requirements for notifying the public of the quality of the water delivered to
customers.
The bill requires the State Water Resources Control Board, on or before July 1, 2020, to adopt a
definition of microplastics in drinking water, and on or before July 1, 2021, to adopt a standard
methodology to be used in the testing of drinking water for microplastics and requirements for 4
years of testing and reporting of microplastics in drinking water, including public disclosure of
those results.
Sea-level Rise and Executive Order S-13-08
In November 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08. The order
indicates that future potential sea level rise associated with climate change may have a substantial
effect on coastal development, and provided for the formation of an independent panel to
complete a California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, 2010. This panel, the
California Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, published the required report in
November 2010 titled Preparing for the Effects of Climate Change – A Strategy for California. This
study noted that the state requested an assessment of defensible sea level projections for the West
Coast from the NRC, which was published in 2012.
State Lands and Sea-level Rise and California AB 691
California Assembly Bill (AB) 691 was signed by Governor Brown on October 5, 2013. Effective
January 1, 2014, this law prepares for the impacts of sea level rise by requiring holders of public
trust lands to assess the impacts and report the results to the State Lands Commission. The law
requires a local trustee whose gross public trust revenues average over $250,000 annually
between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014, to prepare and submit, no later than July 1, 2019,
an assessment of how it proposes to address sea level rise. The law requires a local trustee to
consider and use relevant information from specified sea level rise reports in preparing the
assessment.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-26 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
California Ocean Protection Council Strategic Plan
The California Ocean Protection Council 2020–2025 Strategic Plan provides a roadmap for the
continued progress to protect California’s coast and ocean. Collaborative partnerships among state
agencies is essential for regulating, funding, and developing policy that guide coastal and ocean actions
to achieve the plans goals. The Strategic Plan includes the following policies applicable to sea level rise:
l Objective 1.1 Build Resiliency to Sea-Level Rise, Coastal Storms, Erosion, and Flooding
l Target 1.1.1: Ensure California’s coast is resilient to at least 3.5 feet of sea-level rise by 2050, as
consistent with the State’s Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document as appropriate for a given location
or project. This target will be modified periodically based on the best available science and
updates to the State’s Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document.
l Target 1.1.3: Starting in 2020, provide scientific guidance to partner agencies on the potential
impacts of sea-level rise on contaminated sites and how current models could be used to inform
site-specific decision making.
l Target 1.1.4: Identify pilot projects across the state that represent a diversity of locations, with
variable size and scale, and demonstrate the efficacy of various sea-level rise and extreme event
adaptation strategies by 2021 and begin project implementation immediately thereafter,
consistent with existing laws and policies.
l Target 1.1.5: Build on existing planning efforts to ensure adoption of a requirement that, at a
minimum, all coastal counties will develop a coastal adaptation plan or element and integrate
adaptation approaches into existing planning frameworks (e.g., General Plans, Local Coastal
Programs, Local Hazard Mitigation Programs) by 2023. Develop templates and minimum
standards for adaptation plans or elements by 2021.
l Target 1.1.6: Update the State of California’s Sea-Level Rise Guidance in 2023 and every five years
thereafter to incorporate best available science and projections, and continually improve
integration of changing ocean conditions into California’s state government policies, planning, and
operations (OPC Lead).
Regional
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan
San Francisco Bay waters are under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which
established regulatory standards and objectives for water quality in San Francisco Bay in its Water
Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin, commonly referred to as the Basin Plan. Basin
plans are updated and reviewed every three years. They provide the technical basis for determining
waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant
proposals. Each RWQCB has region-wide and water body–specific beneficial uses and sets numeric
and narrative water quality objectives for several substances and parameters in numerous surface
waters in its region. A basin plan must include (1) a statement of beneficial water uses that the RWQCB
will protect, (2) the water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses,
and (3) strategies to be implemented, with time schedules for achieving the water quality objectives.
The San Francisco Bay Basin Plan was last updated in 2017.15
15 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water
Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Last updated: May 2017. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
rwqcb2/basin_planning.shtml. Accessed: February 19, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-27 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Municipal Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program – Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB issued the most-recent MS4 phase I San Francisco Bay Region
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit), No. CAS029718
(Order No. R2-2015-0049 NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, as amended by Order No. R2-2019-0004),
on November 19, 2015. Several cities and counties, including the City, are covered as permittees
under this permit and required to address the protection of stormwater quality in their jurisdictions
through the implementation of stormwater programs. The City is a permittee under the
San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the MS4s.
The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) is a partnership of the
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), each incorporated City and
town in the county, and the County of San Mateo, which share a common NPDES permit. The project
would be required to comply with San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit Provision C.3 Stormwater Technical
Guidance. Municipalities apply standard stormwater conditions of approval for projects that receive
development permits. The SMCWPPP prepared Provision C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance to assist
projects in designing appropriate post-construction stormwater controls that meet local jurisdictional
requirements and the requirements of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit. This goal is accomplished
through low-impact development (LID) techniques, including infiltration and biotreatment.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has regulatory responsibility
over development in San Francisco Bay and along the Bay's nine-county shoreline. BCDC is guided in
its decisions by the McAteer-Petris Act, the San Francisco Bay Plan, and other plans for specific areas
around the Bay. BCDC, in partnership with state and federal agencies, is developing a regional
sediment management plan that builds on the successful long term management strategy program and
seeks to incorporate flood protection, habitat restoration, sand mining and shoreline erosion in the
overall management of sediments in the Bay.
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The General Plan contains an Open Space and Conservation Element, which
outlines policies relating to habitat and biological resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions and historic and cultural resources conservation. The General Plan contains a Health
and Safety Element, which acknowledges and mitigates the risks posed by hazards (e.g., flooding)
and ensures adequate police service. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable to
hydrology and water quality:
l Policy 7.2-G-1: Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to
maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources.
l Policy 7.2-G-2: Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination.
l Policy 7.2-G-3: Discourage the use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances
within the City.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-28 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l Policy 7.2-I-1: Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of
NPDES and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and
groundwater quality.
l Policy 8.2-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco.
l Policy 8.2-I-1: Continue working with the RWQCB in the implementation of the San Mateo
Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.
l Policy 8.2-I-2: Use the City’s development review process to ensure that proposed development
subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards.
South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 14.04, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, is applicable to hydrology and
water quality. The purpose of the chapter is to ensure the future health, safety and general welfare
of the City of South San Francisco by:
a) Eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer;
b) Controlling the discharge to municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal
of materials other than stormwater;
c) Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.
The intent of Chapter 14.04 is to protect and enhance the water quality of the City’s watercourses,
water bodies and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act. The
chapter includes a section related to low impact development (LID), to reduce runoff and mimic a
site’s predevelopment hydrology by implementing specific practices to control sources of potential
pollution and site design strategies to treat stormwater.
In addition, Chapter 15.56, Flood Damage Prevention, is applicable to hydrology and water quality.
The purpose of Chapter 15.56 is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to
minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions.
4.10.4.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a hydrology or water
quality impact if it would:
l Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface water or groundwater quality;
l Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin;
l Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
that would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite;
o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding onsite or offsite;
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-29 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
o Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
o Impede or redirect floodflows;
l In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or
l Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.
4.10.4.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on the geotechnical investigation prepared for the
proposed project, unless otherwise noted.16 The scope of the geotechnical investigation included a
review of available subsurface information and exploration of the subsurface conditions at the site
regarding, among other topics, groundwater conditions and hydrologic classification of site soils.
Evaluation of the proposed project is also based on the phase I environmental site assessment
prepared for the project site, unless otherwise noted.17 The scope of the phase I environmental
site assessment included reviewing and analyzing project site conditions, including surface water
hydrology and groundwater at the project site. In addition, evaluation of the proposed project is
also based on a review of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act’s Basin Prioritization
Dashboard and FEMA’s National Flood Hazard data.
4.10.4.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact HY-1: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater
quality. (Less than Significant)
Construction
Project construction activities (e.g., grading, spoil stockpiling, and other earth-disturbing
activities) could result in short-term water quality impacts associated with soil erosion and
subsequent sediment transport to adjacent properties, roadways, and watercourses through
storm drains. A number of different industrial activities have occurred within the project site.
Contaminated areas include heavy metal contaminated soil and slag areas, oil shed areas, oil
tanks, acid sewage basin, acid sewage pond, and railroad use. The contaminated areas pose a
potential risk to water quality during ground disturbing activities. However, contamination that
could pose a risk during ground disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project
have been addressed through compliance with an approved Soil Management Plan during the
redevelopment of the site with the existing office buildings, and remedial action at areas of known
contamination. Hazards that pose a risk to water quality have been mitigated, and heavy metal
16 Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 2019. Geotechnical Investigation, 751 Gateway Boulevard,
South San Francisco, CA 75065-1501. November. Oakland, CA.
17 Ramboll Environ US Corporation. 2017. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 701 Gateway Boulevard. Final.
1690006158. South San Francisco, CA. Prepared for: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-30 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
contamination at these sites have been cleaned.18 In the event contaminates are found during
project construction and demolition activities, the project would comply with NPDES regional
permit requirements and Regional Water Board requirements to prevent potential water quality
impacts on surface and groundwater.
Other potential water quality impacts include chemical spills into storm drains or groundwater
aquifers if proper minimization measures are not implemented. Construction activities must
comply with the Construction General Permit, the MRP, and City’s General Plan and Municipal
Code, which contain standards to ensure that water quality is not degraded. As part of the
Construction General Permit, standard erosion control measures and BMPs would be identified in
a SWPPP and implemented during construction. Implementation of BMPs would control erosion,
restrict non-stormwater discharges, and protect water quality from potential contaminants in
stormwater runoff originating from the construction site. BMPs can include the installation of
erosion control measures (e.g., silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins or
traps), geofabric, sandbag dikes, covers for stockpiles, or storage precautions for outdoor material
storage areas. Such BMPs would help to protect surface water and groundwater quality. In
addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions,
which will be attached to the entitlements for the proposed project, including Condition No. 15,
which requires a grading permit prior to any onsite grading to minimize water quality impacts
associated with mobilization of sediment and erosion. The proposed project would also be
required to comply with any project-specific conditions of approval. Therefore, the proposed
project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
Under existing conditions, approximately 19 percent of the project site is covered with pervious
surfaces, and 81 percent of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces. Upon project
completion, approximately 26 percent of the project site would be covered with pervious surfaces,
and 74 percent of the project site would be covered with impervious surfaces, resulting in a slight
decrease in impervious cover. Therefore, water quality associated with stormwater runoff would be
similar to water quality under existing conditions. In addition, the proposed project would also
include three biotreatment areas (e.g., planting areas), one near the entry plaza, one between the
lot north of the proposed building and the Gateway pedestrian connection, and one immediately
east of the proposed building. The biotreatment areas would total approximately 5,500 square
feet and would treat runoff. Stormwater runoff from the project would comply with MRP and
SMCWPPP requirements. The project sponsor would be required to submit the SMCWPPP checklist
to the City to show compliance with NPDES regional permit requirements. BMPs included in site
designs and plans for the project would be reviewed by the City’s engineering staff to ensure
appropriate and adequate design capacity prior to permit issuance. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB,
which has incorporated requirements in the MRP to protect water quality, approved the SMCWPPP,
which is in compliance with the municipal stormwater NPDES permit. The City’s review and
permitting process would ensure that the permit’s waste discharge requirements would not be
violated by the project. Stormwater would be treated per San Mateo County Provision C.3
requirements prior to discharge to the storm drain system.
18 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2020. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project The EDR Radius MapTM Report with
GeoCheck. Inquiry Number: 6007239.2s. March 12.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-31 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
According to the phase I environmental site assessment prepared for the proposed project,
downgradient groundwater contamination has been observed in the vicinity of the project site.
However, contamination cleanup included capping with clean soil and asphalt pavement and a deed
restriction to prohibit residential and other uses (e.g., hospitals, day-care facilities) at the site to
reduce groundwater quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation and this impact would be less
than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact HY-2: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant)
According to the phase I environmental site assessment prepared for the proposed project site,
groundwater was encountered at 14 to 24 feet below ground surface. However, to account for
seasonal fluctuations, the design groundwater level is approximately 7.5 to 18.5 feet below ground
surface. To accommodate utility trenches, the project would require a maximum depth of excavation
reaching approximately 9 feet below ground surface. However, no dewatering would be required
during project construction. In the event that groundwater is encountered during construction,
dewatering would be conducted on a one-time or temporary basis during the construction phase
and would not result in a loss of water that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies.
Project construction would use water from a metered hydrant. The project site is within the
Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin, which is classified as a very low-priority basin; groundwater in
the basin is not a source of supply or recharge. Potable water for the project would be provided via
pipe by the California Water Service Company, which purchases most of its water from the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Therefore, the proposed project would not use groundwater
during construction or operation.
Upon project completion, approximately 26 percent of the project site would be covered with
pervious surfaces, and 74 percent of the project site would be covered with impervious surfaces.
The proposed project would include approximately 59,800 square feet of planted landscaped
areas (not accounting for the proposed biotreatment areas). The proposed project would also
include three biotreatment areas (e.g., planting areas), one near the entry plaza, one between the
lot north of the proposed building and the Gateway pedestrian connection, and one immediately
east of the proposed building. The biotreatment areas would total approximately 5,500 square
feet. Under existing conditions, approximately 81 percent of the project site is covered with
impervious surfaces, compared to 74 percent after project completion. With implementation of the
project, the impervious surface area within the project site would decrease.19 The proposed
biotreatment areas would slow water, allowing it to percolate into the ground and providing increased
benefits related to groundwater recharge. The proposed project would increase groundwater recharge
potential within the project site. Therefore, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the Visitacion Valley
Groundwater Basin. Therefore, the project’s groundwater impact would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
19 BKF. 2020. 701 and 751 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco Wet Utilities. March 5.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-32 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Impact HY-3: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation
onsite or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding onsite or offsite; create or contribute runoff water that would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect floodflows. (Less than Significant)
The project site does not include any existing streams or watercourses that could be altered or
diverted. In addition, the project would decrease impervious surfaces by 7 percent on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to alteration of existing drainage
patters, including alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces. During construction, stormwater drainage patterns could be temporarily altered. However,
the project would implement BMPs, as required in the project SWPPP, to minimize the potential for
erosion or siltation in nearby storm drains and temporary changes in drainage patterns during
construction. Construction BMPs would capture and infiltrate small amounts of sheetflow into the
ground so that offsite runoff from the construction site would not increase, thereby ensuring that
drainage patterns would not be significantly altered. Measures required by the Construction General
Permit would also limit site runoff during construction; such measures would not alter stormwater
drainage patterns. BMPs would be implemented to control construction site runoff, ensure proper
stormwater control and treatment, and reduce the discharge of pollution to the storm drain system.
Therefore, construction of the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation or increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite.
The existing 18-inch storm pipe on the project site would be relocated to accommodate the location
of the proposed building and service and loading yard. New storm drain collector pipes and
biotreatment areas (discussed above) would be constructed within the project site to drain to an
existing 18-inch storm drain line in Gateway Boulevard. With implementation of the project, the
impervious surface area within the project site would decrease by 7 percent.20 The proposed project
would also include three biotreatment areas (e.g., planting areas), one near the entry plaza, one
between the lot north of the proposed building and the Gateway pedestrian connection, and one
immediately east of the proposed building. The biotreatment areas would total approximately
5,500 square feet.
In response to the NOP comment from the County of San Mateo Public Works Department, this
analysis considers the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Assessor’s parcel number 015-024-290 is
outside the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Therefore, stormwater runoff from the parcel would not
be directed into the City storm drain system, which is ultimately conveyed to the San Mateo County
Flood and Sea-Level Rise Resiliency District’s flood control channel. A copy of the “as built” drawings
would be submited to the San Mateo County Flood and Sea-Level Rise Resiliency District. Assessor’s
parcel number 015-024-360 is within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. Discharge rates from the
parcel would not be allowed to exceed existing flow rates with implementation of the proposed
project, in compliance with NPDES regional permit requirements. Drainage analyses concerning
existing and planned discharge flow rates would be submitted to the City for review and approval. If
planned discharge rates exceed existing flow rates, an onsite stormwater detention system would be
implemented. The proposed stormwater detention system would be designed to release surface runoff
at a rate similar to existing conditions.
20 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-33 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
To meet local, state, and federal requirements regarding water quality treatment as well as flood
control, stormwater management facilities would be incorporated into the project. The proposed
project would be designed to conserve resources and protect water quality through the
management of stormwater runoff with green infrastructure and low impact development (LID).
This approach implements engineered controls for stormwater filtering, storage, and flood
control. Post-construction water quality treatment measures, as required by Provision C.3
regulations, such as biotreatment planting areas that drain to native soil, will be implemented as
part of the project. Stormwater runoff would infiltrate into native soil to recharge groundwater
via the proposed biotreatment areas. To reduce water quality impacts from stormwater runoff, a
description of site design and source control measures, and stormwater treatment measure sizing
calculations would be submitted to the City with the final design plans, as required by the NPDES
regional permit. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s
standard conditions, which will be attached to the entitlements for the proposed project, including
Condition No. 13, which requires submitting a plan that indicates the location of all storm drains;
Condition No. 23, which requires that all parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-
around areas drain to the sanitary sewer; and Condition No. 24, which requires that onsite
stormwater catch basins drain to San Francisco Bay and be labeled accordingly. In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with any project-specific conditions of approval.
Therefore, the project would not exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and this impact would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
Impact HY-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, the proposed project would not risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation. (Less than Significant)
The project site is within FEMA Zone X (unshaded), an area of minimal flood hazard, and outside the
FEMA 100-year floodplain.21 Therefore, the project site would not be subject to inundation by a
flood.
Tsunamis, or tidal waves, are huge sea waves that are caused by seismic activity or other
disturbance of the ocean floor. According to the phase I environmental site assessment prepared for
the proposed project, the project site is not within a tsunami inundation area. Therefore, the project
site is not subject to inundation by a tsunami.
A seiche is a tide-like rise and drop of the surface of a landlocked body of water (e.g., a lake); its
period can vary from a few minutes to several hours. There are no reservoirs adjacent to the project
site. In addition, San Francisco Bay is a large and open body of water with no immediate risk of
seiche. Therefore, the project site would not be prone to inundation by a seiche.
As discussed under Impact HY-1 and Impact HY-3, stormwater BMPs would be implemented, as
required by federal, county, and local policies, to minimize degradation of water quality associated
with stormwater runoff or construction-related pollutants. In addition, construction activities would
comply with local stormwater ordinances, stormwater requirements established by San Mateo
County’s MS4 requirements, and regional waste discharge requirements. Project operation would
comply with requirements in the MRP to protect water quality as well as the approved SMCWPPP,
21 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06081C0042F,
dated April 5, 2019. Available: https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/
index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-34 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
which is in compliance with the municipal stormwater NPDES permit, stormwater requirements
established by San Mateo County’s MS4 requirements, and regional waste discharge requirements.
Post-construction water quality treatment measures, as required by Provision C.3 regulations, such
as biotreatment areas, would be implemented as part of the project and would reduce the risk of
pollutant release due to project inundation.
Based on the analysis above, impacts related to a release of pollutants due to project inundation in a
flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone would not occur and this impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact HY-5: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant)
Commonly practiced BMPs would be implemented to control construction site runoff and reduce the
discharge of pollutants to storm drain systems from stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff.
As part of compliance with permit requirements during ground-disturbing or other construction
activities, water quality control measures and BMPs, such as silt fences, fiber rolls, and sediment
traps, would be implemented to ensure that water quality standards would be achieved, including
the water quality objectives that protect designated beneficial uses of surface and groundwater, as
defined in the San Francisco Basin Plan. Releases of construction runoff would comply with the
appropriate water quality objectives for the region. The Construction General Permit requires
stormwater discharges to be free of pollutants that cause, or contribute to, an exceedance of
applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
No dewatering would be required during project construction. In addition, as discussed under
Impact HY-2, groundwater would not be used during construction or operation and groundwater
recharge would increase with implementation of the proposed project. Based on the analysis above,
the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan and this impact would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
Impact C-HY-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hydrology
and water quality. (Less than Significant)
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with surface hydrology
and water quality is the San Mateo Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries sub-watershed. The
context for groundwater hydrology is the Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin of the larger San
Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. The San Mateo Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries sub-
watershed is considered already built out. Consequently, potential growth would most likely occur
as redevelopment and not extensive new development on vacant land or open space. The context for
cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is geographic and a function of whether impacts
could affect surface water features/watersheds, the City’s storm drainage system, or groundwater,
each of which has its own physical boundary. The cumulative projects located within approximately
0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of
this draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1. Additional cumulative development could occur within the
San Mateo Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries sub-watershed and the Visitacion Valley
Groundwater Basin.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-35 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site (i.e., within 0.5 mile of the project site) and
within the San Mateo Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries sub-watershed would be
constructed on infill sites in highly urbanized areas where there is a substantial amount of existing
impervious surface area. All new development is required to handle stormwater in a manner that
ensures that floodflows will not increase or be redirected to other areas. Similar to the proposed
project, all cumulative projects would be required to include post-construction stormwater
management features, such as LID measures, to reduce flows to pre-project conditions. The cumulative
projects would be subject to the requirements of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit, the Construction
General Permit, and the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code related to protecting water resources.
For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative hydrology and water quality
impact. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4.10.5 Land Use
4.10.5.1 Regulatory Framework
Regional
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan22
Refer to Section 4.10.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this draft EIR for a discussion of the
2012 SFO ALUCP. After an ALUC has adopted its ALUCP, affected local governments must update
their general plans, specific plans, and land use regulations to be consistent with the ALUCP. Even if
the local government has amended its plans to be consistent with the ALUCP, it must still submit
proposed new and amended general plans, specific plans, land use ordinances (including rezoning),
regulations, and facility master plans to the ALUC for review. The City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) ALUC reviews local land use policy actions and
administrates consistency review and submits recommendations to the C/CAG Commission.
According to the ALUCP, the Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is the geographic area that is
subject to the land use compatibility considerations identified in the ALUCP, is divided into two
areas: Area A and Area B. Area A encompasses all of San Mateo County and the incorporated cities
within it. Area B roughly follows the noise compatibility and safety zone contours. Consistent with
CFR part 77, the ALUCP establishes height restrictions within specific contours of airport facilities
throughout Area A and Area B. The project site is located within both Area A and Area B.
The ALUCP identifies specific safety compatibility policies to guide safe development and land use
decisions within the airport vicinity. Policy SP-1 identifies Safety Compatibility Zones within certain
distances from the airport to minimize potential hazards and improve public safety. These zones range
from Zone 1, which is a broad area surrounding airport facilities, to Zone 5, which is the area
immediately surrounding airport runways. Policy SP-2 defines incompatible land uses within each
Safety Compatibility Zone. In accordance with Policy SP-2, any new development or potentially
hazardous uses are considered incompatible land uses within Zone 1, and high-intensity facilities such
22 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-36 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
as schools, hospitals, and stadiums, as well as specifically defined hazardous uses, are incompatible
land uses within Zone 5. Policy SP-3 identifies the hazardous uses prohibited within Zone 5, including
aboveground fuel storage tanks, toxic chemical or fireworks manufacturing facilities, and medical or
biological research facilities that use utilize hazardous and/or infectious agents. The project site is not
located in any of the Safety Compatibility Zones.
Local
South San Francisco General Plan23
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic
development of the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a
basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with
the City’s plans and policy standards. The General Plan contains the following chapters:
l Land Use
l Planning Sub-Areas Element
l Transportation
l Parks, Public Facilities, and Services
l Economic Development
l Open Space and Conservation
l Health and Safety
l Noise
The General Plan chapters above cover six of the seven elements required by state law (land use,
open space, conservation, housing, circulation, noise, and safety) and optional elements (Planning
Sub-Areas and Economic Development) that address local concerns and regional requirements. The
seventh required element is the Housing Element, which is updated on a more regular basis than the
General Plan and published under a separate volume.
The General Plan contains a Planning Sub-Areas Element. Policies in this element complement
citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements. Some of these sub-areas have detailed
area plans, specific plans, or redevelopment plans. Where appropriate, the General Plan provides
guidance as to how these plans may need to be changed in order to conform to the policy direction
provided by the General Plan. The sub-areas, 14 in all, were collectively derived from analysis of land
use and urban design patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and activities. The project site
is located within the East of 101 Sub-Area of the Planning Sub-Areas Element.
23 City of South San Francisco. 1999. South San Francisco General Plan. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-division/general-plan.
Accessed: May 8, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-37 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The General Plan governs the amount and intensity of development within the East of 101 Sub-Area
and establishes specific policies and goals for the area, including the project site. The project site is
identified in the 1999 General Plan as Business Commercial (BC). Permitted uses in the BC
designation include “administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices,
research and development facilities, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities.” As
shown in Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, designations surrounding the
project site are BC and Business Technology Park (BTP).
The General Plan contains a Land Use Element,24 which provides a framework to guide land use
decision making citywide. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable to land use
from the Land Use Element:
l Policy 2-G-1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect
residents from changes in non-residential areas.
l Policy 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued
economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco’s prominent inner
bay location and excellent regional access.
l Policy 2-I-22: Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft
noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted
version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San
Francisco International Airport. (Amended by Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
The General Plan contains a Planning Sub-Areas Element, which establishes policies specific to
individual planning sub-areas in the City. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable
to land use from the Planning Sub-Areas Element:
l Policy 3.5-G-3: Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and
development uses.
l 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.
l Policy 3.5-I-5: Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot-size.
l 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.
l Policy 3.5-I-8: Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants,
cafes, support commercial establishments such as dry-cleaners, to meet the needs of the
employees in the East of 101 area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or
integrated into office parks [o]r technology campuses.
l Policy 3.5-I-11: Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand
Avenue or in areas designated Business Commercial.
24 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Land Use Element. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=15526. Accessed: May 8, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-38 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The General Plan contains a Transportation Element, which includes policies, programs, and
standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages. The General Plan includes the following
policies applicable to land use from the Transportation Element:
l Policy 4.2-G-13: Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street design
and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use
public transportation. (Amended by Resolution 136-2014, adopted December 10, 2014)
l Policy 4.2-G-14: Make Complete Streets practice a routine part of South San Francisco’s everyday
operations. (Amended by Resolution 136-2014, adopted December 10, 2014)
The base maximum permitted FAR in the BC land use designation is 0.5, but increases may be
permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as R&D facilities, or for development meeting
specific TDM, off-site improvement, or specific design standards. In addition, the General Plan
provides that the zoning ordinance can provide specific exceptions to FAR limitations for uses with
low employment densities.
Other applicable General Plan policies are discussed in their respective sections of this draft EIR.
The 1999 General Plan is currently being updated as part of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan.25 The
1999 General Plan remains active until completion and adoption of the new general plan.
East of 101 Area Plan26
The East of 101 Area Plan, which was adopted in 1994 and most recently amended in 2016, sets forth
specific land use policies for the East of 101 Area. The City interprets the East of 101 Area Plan as a
design-level document. Applicable policies from the East of 101 Area Plan Land Use Element are as
follows:
l Policy LU-8a: Uses allowed in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall be those specified in the
Gateway Specific Plan.
l Policy LU-8b: The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall be
that specified in the Gateway Specific Plan.
l Policy IM-5: The Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by the land use regulations of the East of 101
Area Plan. Developments on the Gateway site should conform to other policies of this plan
including the Design Guidelines in the Design Element and shall be subjected to City design review.
In the event of a conflict between this Area Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan the Gateway
Specific Plan will prevail.
Per Policy IM-5, the Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by the land use regulations of the East of 101
Area Plan. Therefore, the policies in the General Plan are the guiding policies and supersede all Land
Use Element policies set forth in Chapter 4 of the East of 101 Area Plan.
Gateway Specific Plan
The Gateway Specific Plan covers the portion of the East of 101 Area Plan from east of the Caltrain
tracks to the eastern boundary of the parcels along the east side of Gateway Boulevard and the area
between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue on the northern and southern boundaries. The
25 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/. Accessed:
May 8, 2020.
26 City of South San Francisco. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan. Prepared by Brady and Associates. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=508. Accessed: May 8, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-39 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Specific Plan is “intended to provide for various commercial and research and development land
uses integrated by consistent development standards. Office for professional or business purposes is
permitted on all parcels within the Plan Area. Research and development is permitted on Parcels A
and F. The project site is Parcel F. A FAR of up to 1.25 is permitted in the Gateway Specific Plan area.
Buildings in the Specific Plan area may not exceed 250 feet in height.
South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance27
The City of South San Francisco Zoning provides a means by which the City can implement its
General Plan. As shown in Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is
zoned as Gateway Specific Plan District (GSPD). The GSPD is divided into five individual zones with
specifically defined permitted land uses. The project area is within Zone IV. Permitted uses within
Zone IV include office, research and development, personal service, and retail sales. The maximum
permitted FAR in the GSPD is 1.25. Buildings in the GSPD may have a maximum height of 250 feet.
Climate Action Plan28
The Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in 2014 and discussed in greater detail in Section 4.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this draft EIR, includes goals, policies, and strategies to reduce the
City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill
(SB) 375. GHG reduction strategies identified in the CAP include a development checklist to identify
applicable plan measures for discretionary projects. Measures identified in the plan, which include
bike-share programs or facilities for employees, renewable energy feasibility, Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, and more, can be considered mandatory conditions
of approval or may be adopted as mitigation.
The City’s CAP is currently being updated, as part of the General Plan Update. The 2014 CAP remains
active until completion and adoption of the new CAP.
4.10.5.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant land use
impact if it would:
l Physically divide an established community, or
l Result in 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.
4.10.5.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on a review of the applicable land use plans and policies
described in the Regulatory Framework section, above.
A project that involves a change or intensification in land use would not be considered to have a
significant impact related to the topic of Land Use and Planning unless the project would physically
divide an established community.
27 City of South San Francisco. 2020. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Title 20: Zoning. Available:
http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=20. Accessed: May 8, 2020.
28 City of South San Francisco. 2014. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. Prepared by PMC. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=5640. Accessed: May 8, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-40 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Conflicts with existing plans and policies do not, in themselves, indicate a significant
environmental effect related to the topic of land use and planning within the meaning of CEQA,
unless the project substantially conflicts with a land use plan/policy that was adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The focus of the analysis under Impact
LU-2 is on the proposed project’s potential conflicts with applicable land use plans and policies.
To the extent that physical environmental impacts may result from such conflicts, the EIR
discloses and analyzes these physical impacts under the specific environmental topic sections in
Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this draft EIR. Impacts resulting
from a change or intensification of employment on the project site are embodied in
environmental impacts related to the capacity of existing facilities and services to adequately
serve the area, such as those described in Transportation and Circulation, Population and
Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems. Physical impacts of
construction and/or operation of the proposed project on the environment are embodied in
physical impacts related to environmental topics such as Cultural Resources, Noise, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Energy, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
4.10.5.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community.
(Less than Significant)
The project site consists of a six-story, approximately 170,235-square-foot office building at 701
Gateway Boulevard and surface parking lots. The project site is in an area referred to as the
Gateway Campus. The project site is bounded by a commercial and office building (901 Gateway
Boulevard) and a surface parking lot to the north, Gateway Boulevard to the east, a surface
parking lot to the south, and commercial and office buildings to the west. The proposed project
would not introduce new uses to the project vicinity in a manner that would physically divide the
existing uses.
A pedestrian walkway, the Gateway pedestrian connection, would be constructed along Gateway
Boulevard in the portion of the project site. The approximately 470-foot landscaped walkway
would run parallel to the sidewalk and would connect pedestrians from the northern portion of
the project site to the proposed building. In addition, pedestrian walkways would be constructed
along the existing internal access drive to connect the proposed building to the rest of the
Gateway Campus. The proposed project would also include a widened sidewalk and landscaping
on the west side of Gateway Boulevard along the project frontage. The proposed pedestrian
walkways would improve accessibility between the project site and surrounding uses, and would
not create a physical barrier between existing uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not
physically divide an established community and this impact would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-41 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not result in 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. (Less than Significant)
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
The project site is located within both Airport Influence Areas A and B. However, according to the
2012 SFO ALUCP, the project site is not located within the Community Noise Equivalent Level 65
decibel noise contour29 or any safety zones.30 In general, height limitations and restrictions in the East
of 101 Area are defined by the SFO Airport Influence Area (AIA). Development on the project site is
limited to a height of 300 feet, according to the 2012 SFO ALUCP,31 but may be further restricted after
notification and consultation with the FAA under CFR part 77.9. In addition, as noted above, the
Gateway Specific Plan and GSPD limit building heights to 250 feet. The proposed project would involve
construction of a 148-foot-tall, seven-story building. It is expected that the proposed project would be
compatible with the height restrictions identified in the SFO ALUCP pursuant to consultation with the
FAA. Under federal law, the project sponsor is required to comply with all notifications and other
requirements described in 14 CFR Part 77. The project sponsor would be required to file Form 7460-1,
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA to determine whether the project would
constitute a hazard to air navigation, and if any airspace safety design features (e.g., lighting) would be
necessary. The project site is not located in a Safety Compatibility Zone;32 Policies SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3
are not applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be generally consistent with
the SFO ALUCP. Refer to Section 4.8, Noise and Vibration, of this draft EIR, for an analysis of the
project’s consistency with SFO ALUCP noise policies.
South San Francisco General Plan
The South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element identifies policies intended to shape future
development within the City and its respective planning areas and districts.
As discussed under Impact AES-3, no substantial change to the existing visual character on the
project site or within the surrounding area would occur under the proposed project. As discussed
above, the project would be generally consistent with the SFO ALUCP. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with Land Use Element Policies 2-G-1, 2-G-2, and 2-I-22.
The proposed project would involve new office and R&D uses under the existing BC land use
designation. The total proposed FAR for the site, including both the existing building at 701 Gateway
Boulevard and the proposed building at 751 Gateway Boulevard, would be 1.18, which reflects the
City’s prominent inner bay location and regional access. The base maximum permitted FAR in the BC
land use designation is 0.5, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as
R&D facilities, or for development meeting specific TDM, off-site improvement, or specific design
standards. In addition, the General Plan provides that the zoning ordinance can provide specific
exceptions to FAR limitations for uses with low employment densities. A maximum FAR of 1.25 is
permitted in the GSPD. The proposed project is consistent with previous and ongoing expansion of
29 Exhibit IV-5, Noise Compatibility Zones in the SFO ALUCP.
30 Exhibit IV-2, Airport Influence Area B – Land Use Policy Action/Project Referral Area in the SFO ALUCP.
31 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2020.
32 Exhibit IV-8, Safety Compatibility Zones in the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno in the SFO ALUCP.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-42 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
R&D uses in the East of 101 Area, including the Gateway Campus as well as other biotechnology
campus sites. In addition, the proposed project would provide employee-serving retail amenities,
including a café and fitness center. Signage would be included at site entrances, along walkways, and in
parking lots, consistent with the signage throughout the Gateway Campus. Similarly, the project would
include streetscape improvements that would complement the existing streetscape design of the
Gateway Campus. In addition, the proposed project would not construct new warehousing or
distribution uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Planning Sub-Areas Element
Policies 3.5-G-3, 3.5-1-5, 3.5-I-7, 3.5-I-8, or 3.5-I-11.
As described in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, of this draft EIR, Transportation Element
Policy 4.2-G-13 directs the City to strive to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D or better on arterial and
collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the Congestion Management Program
(CMP) during peak hours. Nonetheless, Transportation Element Policy 4.2-G-14 permits the City to
accept LOS E or F after finding that: (1) there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower
LOS; and (2) the uses resulting in the lower LOS are of clear, overall public benefit. Senate Bill 743
amended CEQA to establish that automobile delay as described solely by level of service shall not be
considered a significant impact on the environment. On June 10, 2020 the City adopted a vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) threshold in accordance with the Office of Planning and Research’s guidance in
implementing Senate Bill 743; the threshold is effective July 1, 2020. Thus, for CEQA purposes, LOS is
no longer a threshold and this analysis considers the appropriate VMT threshold. Therefore, Policies
4.2-G-13 and 4.2-G-14 are not applicable to the CEQA analysis of the proposed project. A discussion of
the project’s VMT impacts, among other transportation impacts, is provided below.
As described in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, the project would generate approximately
16.2 home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee under existing conditions, which is greater than the
regional average total of 14.2 HBW VMT per employee and the per-employee significance threshold of
11.8 HBW VMT. First- and last-mile transit connections and active transportation improvements
would likely yield the greatest project VMT reductions. Mitigation Measure TR-1, First- and Last-mile
Strategies, would support and enhance the effectiveness of the project’s TDM program strategies.
Mitigation Measure TR-1 would be unlikely to substantially reduce HBW VMT per-employee, but
would aid in reducing project auto travel demand. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure
TR-1 would improve pedestrian connections with existing and/or new public shuttle stops and enable
the project to limit travel time effects on existing shuttle routes by eliminating additional route
divisions. Therefore, the project would not produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle
service, nor would it conflict with adopted plans and programs. Project vehicle trips would not exceed
ramp storage capacities nor would the trips interfere with the freeway mainline, specifically at the U.S.
101 southbound off-ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard and U.S. 101 northbound off-ramps at East Grand
Avenue and Dubuque Avenue, and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on
freeway ramp queuing. Furthermore, the project site and proposed building would be designed to
ensure that emergency vehicles would have full access to the project site to provide adequate
emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with transportation-related land
use policies adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect.
Based on the analysis above, the project would be generally consistent with the General Plan.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area Plan establishes specific land use policies for the East of 101 Area, inclusive of the
Gateway Specific Plan area. The proposed project is consistent with previous and ongoing expansion of
R&D uses in the East of 101 Area. As mentioned above, per Policy IM-5, the Gateway Specific Plan is not
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-43 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
affected by the land use regulations of the East of 101 Area Plan. Therefore, the policies set forth in the
General Plan are the guiding policies and supersede all Land Use Element policies set forth in Chapter
4 of the East of 101 Area Plan.
The project site is designated as Gateway Specific Plan Area in the East of 101 Area Plan.33 The City
interprets the East of 101 Area Plan as a design-level document. Development standards and
density determinations, including FAR, are established in the General Plan, which was updated
after the adoption of, and takes precedence over, the East of 101 Area Plan. Moreover, per Policy
IM-5, when East of 101 Area Plan policies are in conflict with or inconsistent with the General
Plan, the General Plan policies supersede requirements outlined in the East of 101 Area Plan.
Policies from the East of 101 Area Plan that are applicable to land use are discussed in Regulatory
Framework, above.
The proposed project would maintain the existing zoning designation of Zone IV under the GSPD.
Based on the zoning, 232,695 square feet of unrealized FAR remains available for the project site,
and the proposed project would utilize a portion of that unrealized FAR. The proposed total FAR
for the site, including both the existing building at 701 Gateway Boulevard and the proposed
building at 751 Gateway Boulevard, would be 1.18. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with Policy LU-8a or Policy LU-8b.
The proposed project site plan (refer to Figure 3-4 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft
EIR) was designed in accordance with the applicable design guidelines in the East of 101 Area
Plan. The guidelines are interpreted during the design review process, which would involve
iterative revisions up until project approval. City staff are responsible for determining final
consistency under that process, and the project is subject to Design Review by the City’s Design
Review Board and Planning Commission. No substantive conflicts have been identified for the
proposed project. Based on the analysis above, the project would be generally consistent with the
East of Area 101 Area Plan and would not result in a significant impact on the environment.
South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance identifies the project site as Gateway Specific Plan District
(GSPD). The GSPD is divided into five individual zones with specifically defined permitted land uses.
The project area is within Zone IV. Permitted uses within Zone IV include office, research and
development, personal service, and retail sales. The maximum permitted FAR in the GSPD is 1.25.
Buildings in the GSPD may have a maximum height of 250 feet. The project proposes office and R&D
uses. The total proposed FAR for the site, including both the existing building at 701 Gateway Boulevard
and the proposed building at 751 Gateway Boulevard, would be 1.18. The project would be 148 feet in
height. In addition, the project would require a Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction. Because
the project would be consistent with land uses permitted under the GSPD zoning district and there
would be no FAR or height exceedances, the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
33 The land use entitlements of the Gateway Specific Plan are not affected by the East of 101 Area Plan and
supersede any standards or entitlements set forth in the East of 101 Area Plan. However, development within
the project site would be required to conform with other policies of the East of 101 Area Plan, such as design
guidelines.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-44 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Climate Action Plan
The proposed project would include a flexible TDM plan, which would include a range of required and
optional alternative transportation-related requirements (e.g., carpool and vanpool ride-matching
services, showers and clothes lockers, shuttle program, short- and long-term bicycle parking, etc.). The
proposed project would also include payment of the City’s East of 101 traffic impact fee. In addition, the
project would be designed to meet LEED Gold certification as well as International WELL and Fitwel
Building Institute Standards. The proposed project would include construction of rooftop solar
photovoltaic panel–ready connectivity to allow for the potential future installation of solar panels. The
project sponsor, in coordination with City staff, would perform ongoing review and identification of
applicable CAP Measures for New Development, or for Additions, Alterations, and Tenant
Improvements, to be incorporated into the proposed project as project features, mitigation of
environmental effects, or mandatory conditions of approval commensurate with the project’s intensity
of use and site-specific conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP. In
addition, as previously discussed, the City’s CAP is currently being updated. The 2014 CAP remains
active until completion and adoption of the new CAP.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not conflict with land uses plans and policies such that a substantial
adverse physical change in the environment related to land use would result. For this reason, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to conflict with a land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No
mitigation is required.
Potential conflicts with applicable policies will continue to be analyzed and considered as part of the
review of entitlements applications required for the proposed project independent of environmental
review under CEQA. They also will be considered by the decision makers during their deliberations on
the merits of the proposed project and as part of their actions to approve, modify, or disapprove the
proposed project.
Impact C-LU-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on land use.
(Less than Significant)
The cumulative geographic context for land use is the immediate vicinity of the project site (i.e., the
parcels adjacent to the project site). The cumulative projects located within approximately 0.5 mile of
the project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR
and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
The nearest cumulative project, the project at 475 Eccles Avenue (Cumulative Project No. 16), is located
approximately 630 feet east of the project site. The project at 475 Eccles Avenue would involve new
office/R&D buildings that would be located on an infill site surrounded by office/R&D uses. The
remaining cumulative projects would also involve new office, R&D, and hotel uses. In addition, two
cumulative projects (Bicycle Master Plan [Cumulative Project No. 23] and Mobility 2020 - East of 101
Transportation Plan [Cumulative Project No. 24]) would make improvements and additions to existing
bicycle, pedestrian, and/or transit networks. Conflicts with existing plans and policies do not, in
themselves, indicate a significant environmental effect related to the topic of land use and planning
within the meaning of CEQA, unless the project substantially conflicts with a land use plan/policy that
was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In addition, cumulative
projects in the vicinity of the project site would be constructed on infill sites and would not divide an
established community. Rather, consistent with current urban design practice in the City, designs would
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-45 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
aim to enhance connectivity. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative land
use impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4.10.6 Mineral Resources
4.10.6.1 Regulatory Framework
There are no federal, state, regional, or local laws, regulations, plans, or policies related to mineral
resources with respect to implementation of the proposed project.
4.10.6.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant mineral
resources impact if it would:
l Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state, or
l Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a
local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
4.10.6.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on a review of the California Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Lands Classification System, in accordance with the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975.34
4.10.6.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact MIN-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and/or a
locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan. (No Impact)
The project site is in an area of the City that has been zoned by the state as Mineral Resource Zone 1
(MRZ-1), an area where no significant mineral deposits are present and little likelihood exists for their
presence.35 The area surrounding the project site is not known to support significant mineral resources
of any type, and no mineral resources are currently being extracted in the City. The list of mines from
the Office of Mine Reclamation (the AB 3098 List), which lists mines that are regulated under the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, does not include any mines that are within the City.36 In addition,
the project site has not been designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the
General Plan, any specific plan, or other land use plan.
34 California Department of Conservation. 2015. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands
Classification (MLC) Data Portal Website. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/
informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. Accessed: February 19, 2020.
35 California Division of Mines and Geology. 1996. Open File Report 96-03—Update of Mineral Land Classification:
Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. Available:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_96-03/OFR_96-03_Text.pdf. Accessed: February 18, 2020.
36 California Department of Conservation. 2020. AB 3098 List. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/smara-mines. Accessed: February 18, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-46 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Because the project site is in a developed urban area and does not contain any known or designated
mineral resources or resource recovery sites, implementation of the proposed project would have
no impact on known mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites. No
mitigation is required.
4.10.7 Population and Housing
4.10.7.1 Regulatory Framework
Regional
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area, created by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, approved in July 2013, is a long-range (2040), integrated transportation
and land use/housing strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area. Senate Bill 375, adopted in 2008,
requires preparation of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), an integrated transportation, land
use, and housing strategy for the Bay Area. The SCS is intended to address transportation, mobility,
and accessibility needs; land development concerns; and GHG emissions reduction requirements
through 2040. Included in the plan are population and housing forecasts for the Bay Area. The most
recent projections, Projections 2040, were released by ABAG in 2019.
Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2015–2023
In the Bay Area, the SCS and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) are mutually reinforcing;
they were developed together to meet the overlapping objectives of SB 375 and housing element
law.37 The City’s housing element incorporates the RHNA and discusses the City’s allocation of
regional housing needs by income, as projected by ABAG. In addition, SB 375 requires the RHNA
to be consistent with the SCS and establishes an eight-year cycle for the RHNA. The 2015–2023
RHNA has been incorporated into Plan Bay Area. The objectives of the RHNA include increasing
the supply, diversity, and affordability of housing; promoting infill development and a more
efficient land use pattern; promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and
housing; protecting environmental resources; and promoting socioeconomic equity. More
important, the RHNA includes production targets that address the housing needs of a range of
household income categories.
The RHNA determined that the Bay Area must plan for 187,990 additional housing units between
2015 and 2023.38 South San Francisco’s share of the regional housing need for this time period is
1,864 new units, with approximately 1,159 of these units allocated as affordable housing. The City’s
RHNA requirement represents approximately 1 percent of the total regional allocation and amounts
to a citywide housing production goal of approximately 233 units per year.
37 Each jurisdiction’s housing element must include a strategy to meet its share of the region’s housing need.
Jurisdictions that do not have the capacity to meet the RHNA requirement must rezone sites with appropriate
development standards to accommodate the allocation requirement.
38 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2013. Regional Housing Need Plan—San Francisco Bay Area, 2015–2023.
Available: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2015-23_rhna_plan.pdf. Accessed: March 9, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-47 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The Economic Development Element of the General Plan provides a policy
framework for ensuring South San Francisco’s long-term competitiveness in the region. Based on
the analysis of recognized business trends and available resources, the Economic Development
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 General Plan Housing Element, adopted in April 2015, is the City’s primary policy document
regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of
the population within the City’s boundaries. Accordingly, the Housing Element identifies and
analyzes the existing and projected housing needs of the City and states goals, policies, quantified
objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of
housing. The Housing Element describes housing needs and identifies the capacity for new housing
in the City based on land supply and development capacity. This element focuses on the City’s
critical need for affordable housing. The Housing Element establishes goals for housing production,
as well as policies related to mitigating the impacts of growth on the housing market. In addition, the
housing element also identifies sites for housing development that are adequate with respect to
accommodating South San Francisco’s portion of the RHNA.
The project site is in the East of 101 Area Plan planning area. The General Plan states that none of the
parcels, including the project site, are designated as residential. In addition, in the Planning Sub-Areas
Element of the General Plan, Implementing Policy 3.5-I-3 states that no residential uses are allowed
within the East of 101 Area Plan planning area, due to land use compatibility and the desire to protect
land for employment uses.
4.10.7.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
population and housing impact if it would:
l Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure); or
l Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
4.10.7.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on the employment estimates provided by the project
applicant and data regarding projected employment growth in the City provided by ABAG’s
Projections 2040.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-48 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.7.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact PH-1: The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). (Less than Significant)
Direct Project-Related Population Growth
Construction
Full buildout of the project is expected to take 18 months and be completed in December 2021, if the
related entitlements are approved by the City. The approximate average number of construction
workers onsite would be 73, with a maximum of 110 workers during building construction. It is
anticipated that construction employees associated with the proposed project who are not already
living in the City would commute from their residences elsewhere in the Bay Area rather than
permanently relocated to South San Francisco from more distant locations; this is typical for employees
in the various construction trades. Once construction is complete, construction workers typically seek
employment at other job sites in the region that require their specific skills. Therefore, construction of
the proposed project would not generate an unplanned population increase in the City and this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
The proposed project does not propose any new housing units and would not directly induce
population growth. The existing office building at 701 Gateway Boulevard would remain. The
proposed project would result in approximately 731 net new employees at the project site.39 Upon
project completion, there would be approximately 1,181 total employees on-site (including the
450 employees in the 701 Gateway building who would remain). The net new employees
generated by the proposed project would increase the number of employees in the City and the
East of 101 Area.
As shown in Table 4.10-2, ABAG projects the City’s jobs will increase by approximately 7,865, from
46,365 in 2020 to 54,230 in 2040. The 731 net new employees that would be generated by the
proposed project would represent less than 10 percent of the City’s total projected job increase
between 2020 and 2040 and would not represent a substantial portion of the projected job growth
in the City. Per ABAG job projections, this is anticipated growth for the City. Therefore, operation of
the proposed project would not generate an unplanned population increase in the City and this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
39 The estimated number of employees is based on data provided by the project applicant; it assumes 60 percent
of the proposed square footage (approximately 118,000 square feet) is R&D space and 40 percent of the
proposed square footage (approximately 78,700 square feet) is office space. The average square footage per
R&D employee is assumed to be 350, and the average square footage per office employee is assumed to be 200.
The estimated number of employees associated with the proposed fitness center and café is accounted for in the
estimate of the number of employees associated with the proposed R&D and office uses.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-49 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 4.10-2. Population, Households, and Job Growth Projections, 2010–2040
2010 2020 2030 2040
Growth
2020–2040
Population
Bay Area 7,150,739 7,920,230 8,689,440 9,652,950 1,732,720
San Mateo
County
721,195 796,925 853,260 916,590 119,665
City of South San
Francisco
64,005 68,105 76,950 80,015 11,910
Households
Bay Area 2,608,025 2,881,965 3,142,015 3,426,700 544,735
San Mateo
County
257,835 284,260 302,520 317,965 33,705
City of South San
Francisco
20,940 22,155 24,950 25,305 3,150
Jobs
Bay Area 3,451,820 4,136,190 4,405,125 4,698,375 562,185
San Mateo
County
343,335 399,275 423,005 472,045 72.770
City of South San
Francisco
38,720 46,365 51,000 54,230 7,865
Source: ABAG. 2019. Projections 2040.
Indirect Project-Related Population Growth
Infrastructure
The proposed project would be located on a developed parcel within the Gateway Campus, which
includes office, R&D, childcare, and amenity uses. The project site is serviced by existing water,
wastewater, stormwater, natural gas, electric, telecommunications, and waste and recycling
services. New on-site facilities would be connected to new services through the installation of new,
localized connections. Expansion or an increase in capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as
required by the utility providers. In addition, the proposed project would not include the extension
of area roadways. Because the proposed infrastructure would be sized to meet the needs of the
proposed project, it would not lead to unplanned indirect population growth or the need for
additional housing beyond that expected to be generated by the proposed project and this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Employment-Related Housing Demand
The net new 731 employees generated as a result of the proposed project could increase demand for
housing and contribute to total overall housing demand citywide. It is assumed that most of the
employees generated by the project would be existing residents in the City, the county, or the Bay
Area, but a small portion of the new employees could generate new demand for housing within the
City. However, this analysis conservatively assumes that all employees generated by the proposed
project would be new to the City, thereby requiring housing.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-50 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The City is primarily built out and any housing constructed within the City limits would most likely
be infill housing. The total number of jobs and the total number of housing units make up an area’s
jobs/housing ratio. The ratio is an indicator of the extent to which the workforce may have an
opportunity to live and work in the same area, assuming the occupations and skills of the employees
match the occupations and skills required for the jobs and that the housing supply meets the needs
of those employees. Local governments may use the jobs/housing balance as a planning tool for
achieving particular policy outcomes; however, it is not a regulatory tool and does not necessarily
imply a physical change in the environment or relate to any recognized threshold of significance
under CEQA. A worsening jobs/housing balance may be an indicator of longer commute times, the
associated environmental consequences of which, such as impacts related to transportation, air
quality, and GHG emissions, are discussed throughout this EIR. Therefore, the jobs/housing balance
is discussed below for informational purposes only.
As shown in Table 4.10-2, ABAG projects the City’s households will increase by approximately 3,150,
from 22,155 in 2020 to 25,305 in 2040. In addition, ABAG projects the City’s jobs will increase by
approximately 7,865, from 46,365 in 2020 to 54,230 in 2040. This means that South San Francisco is a
job center that imports employees from surrounding communities or, alternatively, that exports
housing, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability, already projected to be out of balance,
would decrease with project buildout because the proposed project would result in net new employees
and no increase in housing units. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increased
unfavorable jobs/housing ratio in the City. However, continued job growth in the City will promote a
greater regional balance between jobs and housing. In addition, the City has several residential and
mixed-use projects west of U.S. 101 that are either under construction or in the development pipeline
which would add to the City’s housing supply and promote a greater regional balance between jobs and
housing. The City is located in Bay Area and is well served by all modes of transit, including shuttles,
bus, rail, and air. Therefore, additional potential future employees would have access to a variety of
transportation options for reaching the project site from throughout the Bay Area.
ABAG projects the City, on average, currently has approximately 1.54 employed residents per
household.40 Accordingly, the proposed project would create the need for up to 475 new housing
units upon buildout.41 Although it is likely that some of the new employees would be existing
residents in the City or the region, the potential employment increase resulting from the proposed
project could result in indirect growth that the City may not be able to accommodate with existing
and projected housing in the City. The City acknowledges that much of its land area, including the
East of 101 Area, is not well suited for housing development due to existing land use conflicts (e.g.,
proximity to SFO, the historic and existing industrial uses of the East of 101 Area, and emerging
office and R&D uses in the area).42 The City does not have an adopted jobs/housing ratio goal that
would be applicable to development within the East of 101 Area and relies upon the Bay Area’s
regional jobs-housing balance for informational purposes only. Nonetheless, the City adopted the
Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fees in chapter 8.69 of the Municipal Code to establish fees
for non-residential development projects and to address the effect of increased job opportunities
and the need for affordable housing.
40 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. Calculation based on employed residents
(34,075) divided by households (22,155) in 2020.
41 The number new housing units needed for the employees generated from the proposed project was calculated
as follows: Employees generated under the proposed project divided by the number of employed residents per
household. (i.e. 731/1.54= 475 housing units required).
42 General Plan, Chapter 3, Policy 3.5-I-3, p. 3-45.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-51 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The proposed project would promote greater regional balance between jobs and housing and would
be located within an area with compatible land uses, consistent with General Plan and specific plan
designations. In addition, the job growth that would occur as a result of the proposed project would
be consistent with the City’s projected employment growth, and the project would be required to
pay the commercial linkage fee under Chapter 8.69 of the Municipal Code, which would contribute
to the development of affordable housing in other locations within the City. Therefore, the proposed
project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (by
proposing new businesses) or indirectly (through extension of roads or other infrastructure and this
impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact PH-2: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (No
Impact)
The project site does not contain any existing residents or housing units. The existing 450
employees in the 701 Gateway Boulevard building would remain under the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact because it would not displace people or
housing.
Impact C-PH-1: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact on population and housing. (Less than
Significant)
Housing and employment growth in South San Francisco is consistent with the projections
contained in Plan Bay Area, which is the current Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy adopted by Metropolitan Transportation Commission and ABAG in July 2017,
in compliance with California’s governing GHG reduction legislation, Senate Bill 375. Plan Bay Area
calls for an increasing percentage of Bay Area growth to occur as infill development in areas with
good transit access where the services necessary for daily living are provided in proximity to
housing and jobs. South San Francisco is expected to accommodate its fair share of future regional
growth. Therefore, the Plan Bay Area projections represent the cumulative geographic context for
population and housing. The cumulative projects located within approximately 0.5 mile of the
project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR
and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
Direct Population Growth
The proposed project does not propose any new housing units and would not directly induce
population growth. None of the cumulative projects are residential mixed-use or housing projects;
thus, the cumulative projects would not increase the residential population surrounding the
project site. Although the cumulative projects would generate demand for new housing units in
the City, the cumulative projects would not constitute direct population growth.
For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a direct significant cumulative population and
housing impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-52 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Indirect Population Growth
Infrastructure
The proposed project would be located on a developed parcel. In addition, the proposed
infrastructure would be sized to meet the needs of the proposed project. Each of the cumulative
projects would construct new uses on existing infill sites in an urbanized area. Development of
infrastructure could remove obstacles to population growth if it would allow for development in
an area that was not previously considered feasible for development because of infrastructure
limitations, which could induce population growth indirectly. The proposed project and the
cumulative projects would not include the extension of area roadways or expansion of
infrastructure to areas lacking existing development. The East of 101 Area is confined by the San
Francisco Bay on the north, east and south sides, and existing development west of U.S. 101.
Therefore, the amount of development potential is limited by the amount of land available for
infill development, and not generally limited by the availability of infrastructure. Some of the
cumulative projects may require off-site improvements to utility infrastructure proportional to
the scale of development proposed by each project. However, this infrastructure would not
indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area because the cumulative
projects are located on infill sites surrounded by existing development and the proposed
infrastructure improvements would be sized to meet only project needs and would not enable
additional development. Furthermore, each of these projects would be required to provide
impact fees associated with City infrastructure improvements. For these reasons, the proposed
project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
would not result in a significant indirect population growth as a result of expansion of
infrastructure. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Employment-Related Housing Demand
As discussed under Impact PH-1, the City is a job center that imports employees from surrounding
communities or, alternatively, that exports housing. Housing availability, already projected to be out of
balance, would decrease with implementation of the proposed project in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, and would result in an increased unfavorable
jobs/housing ratio in the City.
The proposed project would result in approximately 731 net new employees at the project site.43
The cumulative projects primarily include office, R&D, hotel, and other commercial uses. The
cumulative projects would generate approximately 19,167 employees.44 Therefore, at project
43 The estimated number of employees is based on data provided by the project applicant; it assumes 60 percent
of the proposed square footage (approximately 118,000 square feet) is R&D space and 40 percent of the
proposed square footage (approximately 78,700 square feet) is office space. The average square footage per
R&D employee is assumed to be 350, and the average square footage per office employee is assumed to be 200.
The estimated number of employees associated with the proposed fitness center and café is accounted for in the
estimate of the number of employees associated with the proposed R&D and office uses.
44 The employee generated by each of the cumulative projects was calculated using the following employee
generation rates from the General Plan: 450 square feet of office/R&D space per employee, 400 square feet of
commercial space per employee, and 955 square feet of industrial space per employee. The employee
generation rates used for the proposed project is based on data provided by the project applicant and, thus,
differs from the employee generation rates used for the cumulative projects, which are based on the General
Plan.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-53 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
buildout, the proposed project in combination with other projects would generate approximately
19,898 new employees in the City. As previously discussed, the City is projected to have 54,230
jobs in 2040. The proposed project in combination with the other projects would represent
approximately 37 percent of the total jobs projected in the City in 2040, and approximately 244
percent of the incremental job growth from 2020-2040. The total job growth generated by the
project and cumulative projects would be within total job growth projections for the City and
consistent with the long-term goal of developing and intensifying office and R&D uses within the
Gateway Specific Plan and East of 101 Area; however, the job growth generated by the project and
cumulative projects would exceed the City’s incremental job growth projections from 2020-2040.
ABAG projects the City, on average, currently has approximately 1.54 employed residents per
household.45 Accordingly, the proposed project would create the need for up to 475 new housing units
upon buildout and the cumulative projects would create the need for up to 12,446 new housing units
upon buildout.46 Although it is likely that some of the new employees would be existing residents in
the City or the region, the potential employment increase resulting from the proposed project could
result in indirect growth that the City may not be able to accommodate with existing and projected
housing in the City. The City acknowledges that much of its land area, including the East of 101 Area, is
not well suited for housing development due to existing land use conflicts (e.g., proximity to SFO, the
historic and existing industrial uses of the East of 101 Area, and emerging office and R&D uses in the
area).47 The City does not have an adopted jobs/housing ratio goal that would be applicable to
development within the East of 101 Area and references the Bay Area’s regional jobs-housing ratio
data for informational purposes only, for the purposes of developing or analyzing policies.
Nonetheless, the City adopted the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fees in Chapter 8.69 of the
Municipal Code to establish fees for non-residential development projects and to address the effect of
increased job opportunities and the need for affordable housing. In addition, the City has several
residential and mixed-use projects west of U.S. 101 that are either under construction or in the
development pipeline which would add to the City’s housing supply and help to offset the housing
demand generated by the proposed project and cumulative projects.48 Furthermore, as part of the
City’s General Plan Update, some areas throughout the City that are not considered for residential
land uses under the current General Plan may be re-designated and re-zoned to allow for residential
development in order to help accommodate for future housing demands.
Based on the analysis above, there would be a significant cumulative impact on indirect population
growth as a result of increasing employment-related housing demand, due to the lack of housing
available within the City. However, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant because growth under the project
would be consistent with the long-term goal of developing and intensifying office and R&D uses
within the Gateway Specific Plan and East of 101 Area, and within the growth projections for the
City. No mitigation is required.
45 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. Calculation based on employed residents
(34,075) divided by households (22,155) in 2020.
46 The number new housing units needed for the employees generated from the cumulative projects was
calculated as follows: Employees generated by the cumulative projects divided by the number of employed
residents per household. (i.e. 19,167/1.54= 12,446 housing units required).
47 General Plan, Chapter 3, Policy 3.5-I-3, p. 3-45.
48 City of South San Francisco. 2020. South San Francisco Development and Construction Map. Available:
http://construction.ssf.net/. Accessed: April 27, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-54 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.8 Public Services
4.10.8.1 Regulatory Framework
State
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code, 2019 edition, as published by the International Code Council and adopted
by the State Fire Marshal, is adopted by reference by the City of South San Francisco. Section 13000
et seq. of the California Health Safety Code includes regulations concerning the building standards
set forth in the California Building Standards Code and state fire regulations. These include
standards concerning fire protection and notification systems; fire protection devices, such as
extinguishers and smoke alarms; fire suppression training; and high-rise construction.
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The General Plan contains a Health and Safety Element, which acknowledges and
mitigates the risks posed by hazards (e.g., fire) and ensures adequate police service. The General
Plan includes the following policies applicable to public services:
l Policy 8.4-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco.
l Policy 8.4-G-2: Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens’ needs.
l Policy 8.4-I-449: Require site design features, fire-retardant building materials, and adequate access
as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the City.
l Policy 8.5-G-1: Provide police services that are responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a safe and
secure environment for people and property in the community.
l Policy 8.5-I-1: Ensure adequate police staff to provide a rapid and timely response to all
emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times.
Actions that could be taken to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies include:
o Maintain a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents;
o Analyze and monitor factors affecting response time (population growth, police staffing,
community policing programs) and average response times as guidelines based on past
experience;
o Maintain, train, and equip special response teams for extraordinary or extremely hazardous
emergency incidents; and
o Develop and/or use the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) for analysis of issues
including crime location trends and response routes (see policy 2-I-14).
49 Policy 8.4-I-4 is misnumbered in the General Plan as the second Policy “8.4-I-3”.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-55 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.8.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant public
services impact if it would:
l Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following
public services:
o Fire protection,
o Police protection,
o Schools,
o Parks, or
o Other public facilities;
4.10.8.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on considering how employee population growth resulting
from implementation of the proposed project would affect public services. According to the CEQA
significance criteria, the proposed project would have an adverse environmental impact if it were to
result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any public
services (i.e., fire and police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities). Physical impacts
associated with parks are discussed in Section 4.10.9, Recreation, of this draft EIR.
4.10.8.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact PS-1: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically
altered fire and emergency medical services in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives. (Less than Significant)
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides fire protection and emergency
services for the project area. The department has 87 full-time-equivalent employees and 4.93
hourly and contract employees for operations that include fire prevention, emergency medical
services, and administrative work.50 A minimum of 24 emergency responders are on-duty during
each of the department’s three shifts. The Health and Safety Element of the General Plan does not
identify a personnel-to-service population ratio.
There are five fire stations in the City. The nearest fire station to the project is Fire Station No. 62
at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 0.8 mile south of the project site. Fire Station No. 62 has three
apparatus bays. Fire Station No. 62 would be supported by Fire Station No. 61 and Fire Station
50 City of South San Francisco. 2019. Adopted Biennial Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal
Years 2019–2021. Available: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=16797. Accessed: February 24, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-56 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
No. 65. The project site is not within a Fire Hazard Management Unit.51 Existing access to the
project site, via Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and Oyster Point Boulevard, would not
change as a result of the proposed project.
The SSFFD’s goal is to arrive at emergency incidents within seven minutes of a call, including four
minutes for travel time.52,53 To determine the adequacy of fire and emergency medical service in
the East of 101 Area, the City mapped areas that can be traveled to within 4 minutes from Station
No. 62.54 Areas at the northeastern end of the East of 101 Area, including the project site, are
within the existing Fire Station No. 62 4-minute travel time capability. Therefore, no new
firefighting facilities would be necessary to serve the proposed project.
The proposed project would increase the demand for fire protection services as a result of the
increased number of employees (i.e., 731 net new employees). Table 4.10-3 identifies the estimated
annual service calls, calls per day, and firefighter demand generated by the proposed project. The
proposed project would generate approximately 7 calls per year and fewer than 1 call per month.
Therefore, the project would not require additional emergency-medical or fire-response personnel.
Table 4.10-3. Estimated Project Demand for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response
Proposed
Office/R&D Space
(square feet)
Annual
Service
Calls
Total
Calls
per Day
Firefighter
Demand
Proposed Project 208,800 4.10.8.5 7.06 4.10.8.6 .019 4.10.8.7 0
Note: The average annual call volume was calculated using an annual service call generation rate of 0.0338 calls
per 1,000 square feet of Office/R&D as follows: 0.0338 calls x (208,800 square feet/ 1,000 square feet) = 7.06
annual service calls.
Source: Michael Baker International. 2017. 2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Appendix I- Municipal
Services Assessment, Table A-1: Firefighter/Emergency Response Call Volume Demand Estimates. Available:
https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/367046/Page1.aspx. Accessed: February 25, 2020.
The SSFFD also commented on the proposed project through the City’s standard review process.
Staffing and service issues were not identified with respect to site development.
Based on the analysis above, although the project would result in more employees at the project site,
it is expected that the proposed land uses would not lead to a substantial increase in service calls to
SSFFD. In addition, it is anticipated that the project would not lead to an increase in SSFFD service
call response times. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s
standard conditions, which will be attached to the entitlements for the proposed project, including
Condition No. 26, which requires compliance with City the City’s Fire Code Ordinance. In addition,
the proposed project would be required to comply with any project-specific conditions of approval
51 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Health and Safety Element. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=472. Accessed: February 24, 2020.
52 Michael Baker International. 2017. 2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Appendix I- Municipal Services
Assessment. Available: http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/fol/51192/Row1.aspx?dbid=0&startid=
51192&row=1. Accessed: February 25, 2020.
53 Response time is defined as the time that elapses between the moment a call is received by dispatch and the
moment when the first unit assigned to the call arrives at the scene.
54 Michael Baker International. 2017. 2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Appendix I- Municipal Services
Assessment, Map7b- 4 Minute Travel Time from Station 62. Available:
https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/367046/Page1.aspx. Accessed: February 24, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-57 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
which includes payment of the Public Safety Impact Fee for the East of 101 Area Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the
construction or alteration of fire protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives and this impact would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
Impact PS-2: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically
altered police protection services in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives. (Less than Significant)
The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) provides police protection services for the
project area. The department consists of a records division, communications division, canine unit,
evidence division, neighborhood response team, and traffic unit; it also conducts day and night
patrols. The SSFPD has a total of 117 full-time-equivalent employees and 4.87 hourly and contract
employees.55 The department’s 83 sworn officers and 35 civilian employees equate to a ratio of 1.75
officers per 1,000 residents.56,57
There is only one SSFPD police station in the City; the station is located at 33 Arroyo Drive,
approximately 2.2 miles west of the project site. A police sub-station is also located in the
downtown, approximately 1.1 miles west of the project site. A new police headquarters that will
replace the existing police station is part of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, which is
currently under construction. The new police headquarters will be approximately 44,000 square
feet compared to the approximately 32,000-square-foot existing police station. The new police
headquarters will result in an approximately 12,000 square feet of additional facility space.58
Policy 8.5-I-1 of the General Plan Health and Safety Element seeks to maintain a target ratio of 1.5
officers per 1,000 residents to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies. The proposed
project does not propose any new housing units and would not impact the ratio of officers per
resident. In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, the response time to emergency
calls averaged three minutes and 59 seconds; the response time to non-emergency calls averaged six
minutes and three seconds.59 These response times are considered acceptable under SSFPD goals,
although there are no adopted standards.
The proposed project would increase the demand for police protection services as a result of the
increased number of employees (i.e., 731 net new employees). Table 4.10-4 identifies the estimated
annual service calls, calls per day, and police demand generated by the proposed project. The
proposed project would generate fewer than 5 calls per year and fewer than 1 call per month.
Therefore, the project would not require additional police personnel.
55 City of South San Francisco. 2019. Adopted Biennial Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal
Years 2019–2021. Available: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=16797. Accessed: February 24, 2020.
56 Based on the City’s 2018 total population of 67,587. City of South San Francisco. n.d. South San Francisco
Demographic Information- South San Francisco Population. Available: https://www.ssf.net/our-city/about-
south-san-francisco/demographic-information. Accessed: February 25, 2020.
57 City of South San Francisco. n.d. Police Department Divisions. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/police/divisions. Accessed: February 25, 2020.
58 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Community Civic Campus Program—Police Station. Available:
http://www.measurewssfcivic.com/index.php/29-project-stats/107-police-station. Accessed: April 27, 2020.
59 Michael Baker International. 2017. 2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Appendix I Municipal Services
Assessment. Available: http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/fol/51192/Row1.aspx?dbid=0&startid=51192&
row=1. Accessed: February 25, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-58 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 4.10-4. Estimated Police Protection Incidents Generated by the Proposed Project
Proposed
Office/R&D
Space (square
feet)
Annual
Service
Calls
Total
Calls
per Day Police Demand
Proposed Project 208,800 4.10.8.8 4.6 4.10.8.9 .012 4.10.8.10 0
Note: The average annual call volume was calculated using an annual service call generation rate of 0.0221 calls
per 1,000 square feet of Office/R&D as follows: 0.0221 calls x (208,800 square feet/ 1,000 square feet) = 4.61
annual service calls.
4.10.8.11 Source: Michael Baker International. 2017. 2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Appendix I- Municipal Services
Assessment, Table A-2: Police Department Response Call Volume Demand Estimates. Available:
https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/367046/Page1.aspx. Accessed: February 25, 2020.
The SSFPD also commented on the proposed project through the City’s standard review process.
Staffing and service issues were not identified with respect to site development. The proposed
project would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code, chapter 15.48.070, which
includes specifications for security design measures, as a standard condition of project approval.
Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to pay the Public Safety Impact Fee for the
East of 101 Area as a condition of approval. Therefore, the proposed project’s increased demand for
services would not be substantial, given the overall demand for police protection throughout the
City.
Based on the analysis above, although the project would result in more employees at the project site,
it is expected that the proposed land uses would not lead to a substantial increase in service calls to
SSFPD. In addition, it is anticipated that the project would not lead to an increase in SSFPD service
call response times. The upgrade to police facilities that is currently underway would further reduce
response times and service ratios. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply
with the City’s standard conditions, which will be attached to the entitlements for the proposed
project, including Condition No. 25, which requires compliance with City’s Minimum Building
Security Standards Ordinance. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with
any project-specific conditions of approval. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of police
protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact PS-3: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically
altered schools or other public facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or
other performance objectives. (Less than Significant)
Schools and Libraries
The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) and South San Francisco Public Library
serve the project area. As discussed in Section 4.10.7, Population and Housing, of this draft EIR, it is
anticipated that some of the proposed project’s employees may relocate to the City, thereby
generating a small indirect increase in student enrollment or library use. However, because the
proposed project would not involve the construction of any housing units, it is not anticipated that
the proposed project would generate a substantial increase in demand for SSFUSD or South San
Francisco Public Library services. As part of phase II of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, a
new library will be constructed, which is scheduled to begin construction in late 2020 and would
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-59 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
likely increase the South San Francisco Public Library’s capacity. The new library would replace the
existing main library. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to a SSFUSD fee based on
the square footage of the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of
school or library facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives and
this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Childcare
The proposed project would increase the demand for preschool childcare services as a result of the
increased number of employees (i.e., 731 net new employees). An adequate number of preschool and
other childcare facilities currently exist in the City and would likely be able to accommodate the
increase in demand for preschool childcare services that would be generated by the proposed project.60
In addition, the proposed project would be required to pay the City’s Childcare Impact Fee Program.
The purpose of this program is to provide new and expanded childcare facilities with funding from new
developments. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse
environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of childcare facilities to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives and this impact would be less
than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-PS-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on public
services. (Less than Significant)
The cumulative geographic context for public services varies according to the type of public service.
The cumulative geographic contexts for fire, police, and school service are the service areas of the
SSFFD, SSFPD, and SSFUSD, respectively. The cumulative geographic context for library and
childcare service is the generally the City. The cumulative projects located within approximately 0.5
mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this
draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
The City has several residential and mixed-use projects west of U.S. 101 that are either under
construction or in the development pipeline which would increase the number of housing units in
the City. Thus, the cumulative projects would generate a direct increase in the demand for fire,
police, school, library, and childcare services. The proposed project would not involve the
construction of any housing units. Some of the employees generated by the proposed project or the
cumulative projects may relocate to the City, thereby generating a small indirect student population
increase or an increase in library use. However, it is not anticipated that the SSFUSD or the South
San Francisco Public Library would experience a substantial growth in demand. Furthermore, the
cumulative projects, similar to the proposed project, would be subject to a SSFUSD development
impact fee based on the square footage of each project, and would be subject to the South San
Francisco Childcare Impact Fee. The cumulative projects, in combination with the proposed project,
would increase the number of residents and employees in the area, leading to an increase in demand
for fire protection, police protection, and childcare services. SSFFD and SSFPD are essential service
60 Sarah Kinahan Consulting. 2017. San Mateo County Childcare and Preschool Needs Assessment. November 2017.
Available: https://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/About_FIL/Child%20Care%20Partnership%20Council_FIL/
Needs%20Assessment_FIL/CCPC_Full_Report_Needs_Assessment_11-17.pdf. Accessed: February 24, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-60 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
providers that continually assess demand based on anticipated growth and service needs. By
analyzing applicable metrics, SSFFD and SSFPD are able to adjust staffing, capacity, response times,
and other measures of performance. In addition, most (if not all) the cumulative projects, similar to
the proposed project, would be subject to the Public Safety Impact Fee of the East of 101 Area and
the City’s Childcare Impact Fee Program. Therefore, the cumulative projects would not result in any
service gaps related to schools, libraries, fire, police, or childcare services. For these reasons, the
proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects, would not result in a significant cumulative public services impact. The cumulative impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Parks
Refer to Section 4.10.9, Recreation, for a discussion of impacts on parks.
4.10.9 Recreation
4.10.9.1 Regulatory Framework
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The General Plan contains a Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element, which
outlines policies relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities. The
General Plan includes the following policy applicable to recreation:
l Policy 5.1-G-3: Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space;
improve access to existing facilities where feasible.
South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages parks and recreation
centers within the City’s boundaries. The master plan includes the following goals that are relevant
to recreation:
l Goal 4: Incorporate innovative amenities to serve multiple user groups as new parks and
facilities are developed or existing parks are renovated.
l Goal 11: Incorporate sustainable features into parks and facilities to increase water
conservation, energy efficiency, and habitat values; encourage non-motorized transportation;
and educate about the environment.
South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.67
According to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 8, Health and Welfare, Chapter 8.67,
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, the City determined that in order to provide sufficient funding to
achieve the City’s goal of maintaining park service levels and providing adequate parks and
recreational services and facilities to residents of the City, certain development projects, as
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-61 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
outlined in Section 8.67.050, would be required to pay a parkland acquisition fee and a park
construction fee in order to mitigate the impacts of the development projects on parks and
recreational services and facilities within the City. The proposed project falls is considered a
development project as defined in Section 8.67.050 and would be required to pay the impact fee.
4.10.9.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
recreation impact if it would:
l Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered park facilities or the need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
l Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated, or
l Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
4.10.9.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on considering how employee population growth
resulting from implementation of the proposed project would affect recreational facilities. The
analysis also considers whether environmental impacts would result from development of the
proposed open space improvements that would be incorporated as part of the proposed project.
According to the CEQA significance criteria, the proposed project would have an adverse
environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with
the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any public services (e.g., parks).
4.10.9.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact REC-1: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically
altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance
objectives. (Less than Significant)
The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages over 270 acres of parks
and open space parks and outdoor recreational facilities within the City, including 145 acres of 21
parks and playgrounds; over 80 acres of open space at Sign Hill Park, Oyster Point Marina, and a
community garden; and 14 acres of athletic fields.61
As discussed in Section 4.10.7, Population and Housing, of this draft EIR, it is anticipated that some of the
proposed project’s employees may relocate to the City, thereby generating a small indirect increase in
park use. However, because the proposed project would not involve the construction of any housing
units, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would generate a substantial increase in demand
61 City of South San Francisco Parks Division. 2020. Parks. Available: https://www.ssf.net/departments/parks-
recreation/parks-division. Accessed: April 28, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-62 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
for City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department park facilities. In addition, a 1.3-acre
park s included in phase II of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, which is scheduled to begin
construction in late 2020 and would increase the amount of park space in the City. Furthermore, as
defined in South San Francisco municipal code section 8.67, and described above in section 4.10.9.1,
Regulatory Framework, the proposed project would be required to pay the parks and recreation impact
fees to help the City achieve its goal of maintaining park service levels and providing adequate facilities,
in order to help mitigate any impacts that may result from development projects. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the
construction or alteration of park facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance
objectives and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact REC-2: The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facilities would occur or be accelerated. (Less than Significant)
Table 4.10-5 identifies nine open space and recreational facilities within one mile of the project site. In
addition, a 1.3-acre park that is part of phase II of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, which is
scheduled to begin construction in late 2020 and would increase the amount of park space in the City.
The proposed project would increase the demand for recreational facilities as a result of the increased
number of employees (i.e., 731 net new employees). However, this use would not substantially
deteriorate existing parks or recreational facilities based on the relatively small number of new
employees expected to occupy the proposed new building and because employees would most likely
visit parks only briefly during lunch or while on breaks. The Bay Trail is the nearest recreational
facility, located 0.2 mile north of the project site. The Bay Trail is a paved hardscaped resource that is
designed for repetitive use for commuting and recreational use for users across the entire Bay Area. To
accommodate future demand from employees, the proposed project would include an outdoor entry
plaza northwest of the proposed building and an outdoor amenity space southwest of the proposed
building. Both the entry plaza and the amenity space would include landscaping, outdoor gathering
areas, and seating areas. In addition, the project would include new landscaping along the perimeter of
the site. It is anticipated that the proposed amenities would partially offset recreation demand from
employees on-site.
Because of accessibility, future employees would most likely choose to use onsite facilities provided
as part of the proposed project and the nearby parks listed in Table 4.10-5, instead of more distant
park and recreational facilities. Existing employees on the project site and in the surrounding area
who use existing parks and recreational facilities may choose to visit the new facilities that would be
provided with the proposed project. This could reduce the rate of deterioration at existing parks and
recreational facilities both within and near the project area. Furthermore, as defined in South San
Francisco municipal code section 8.67, and described above in section 4.10.9.1, Regulatory
Framework, the proposed project would be required to pay the parks and recreation impact fee to
help the City achieve its goal of maintaining park service levels and providing adequate facilities, in
order to help mitigate any impacts that may result from development projects.
Although the number of park users is expected to increase as a result of the proposed project, such
an increase, in and of itself, would not cause substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities
or a need for new facilities to be constructed. Other factors that contribute to physical degradation
of recreational resources include the availability of facilities, park design, the age of the
infrastructure, how the park is used, and the level of maintenance. Given the variety of nearby open
space and recreational facilities, the increased usage of any one park by new employees at the
project site would not be substantial. In addition, the provision of adequate onsite open space under
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-63 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 4.10-5. Open Space and Recreational Facilities within 1 Mile of the Project Site
Name Size (acres) Amenities
Distance from
Project Site (mile)
Oyster Point Marina 4.7 acres Open lawns, walking trails,
benches, picnic areas, marina, pier,
beach, ferry building, and live-
aboard boat docking
0.6 mile east
Wind Harp Park 0.5 acre Open lawn, public art feature,
walking trail, and benches
0.8 mile southeast
Bay Trail 6 miles within
the City
Bicycle and pedestrian trail, picnic
tables, barbeques, and benches
0.2 mile north
Jack Drago Park 0.8 acres Open lawn, landscaped areas, and
a bench
0.5 mile southwest
Irish Town Greens 1.5 acres Flat open lawn, usable for active
play (i.e., frisbee or pick-up soccer)
0.4 mile west
Gardiner Playlot 0.1 acre Children’s play area, and half court 0.3 mile northwest
Paradise Valley Pocket
Park and Paradise Valley
Recreation Center Park
1.1 acres
(Pocket Park)
0.8 acre
(Recreation
Center Park)
Open lawn, walking trail, children’s
play area, recreation building,
restrooms, picnic tables, and
basketball court
0.7 mile northwest
Cypress and Pine Playlot 0.3 acre Open lawn, children’s play area,
picnic tables, two half courts
0.5 mile west
City Hall Playlot and
Grounds
1.8 acre Children’s play area, picnic tables,
and a fountain
0.9 mile southwest
Source: City of South San Francisco. 2015. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=498. Accessed: February 21, 2020.
the proposed project would not increase the use of nearby recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore,
impacts related to the use of existing parks and recreational facilities would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact REC-3: The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment. (Less than Significant)
Any potential adverse effects from the incorporation of open space as part of the proposed project
would be associated with construction of the open space, such as noise or air quality impacts
(e.g., emissions of dust and other pollutants). These potential impacts are addressed in Sections 4.2
through 4.10 of this draft EIR as part of the analysis of construction impacts for the proposed project
as a whole, with mitigation measures provided as necessary. Overall, no significant physical effect on
the environment associated with construction of open spaces is anticipated, and no long-term effects
from physical operation of these facilities are anticipated. Construction of the open spaces proposed by
the project would not result in additional significant impacts that are not disclosed elsewhere in this
environmental document; therefore, physical environmental impacts resulting from the construction
of open space under the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-64 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Impact C-REC-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on recreation.
(No Impact)
The cumulative geographic context for recreation is the City in addition to all existing and potential
new open spaces that will be available to and accessible by employees in the project area. The
cumulative projects located within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site are described in
Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
The City has several residential and mixed-use projects west of U.S. 101 that are either under
construction or in the development pipeline which would increase the number of housing units in
the City. Thus, the cumulative projects would generate a direct increase in the demand for fire, park
facilities. The cumulative projects, in combination with the proposed project, would increase the
number of residents and employees in the City, leading to an increase in demand for recreational
facilities. As discussed under Impacts REC-1, REC-2, and REC-3, the proposed project would not
physically degrade any existing recreational resources, would not result in significant effects related
to the construction of new open spaces, would not increase demand for and use of either
neighborhood parks or recreational facilities such that it would result in substantial physical
deterioration. In addition, the cumulative projects, similar to the proposed project, would be
required to pay the parks and recreation impact fee. Furthermore, additional recreational facilities
are being developed throughout the City or are in the planning stages (e.g., the 1.3-acre park that is
part of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, the Bicycle Master Plan [No. 23]) to address
existing and future recreational needs. Similar to the project, new employees in the East of 101 Area
would also use portions of the Bay Trail that are near their sites. Because the Bay Trail is a paved
hardscaped resource that is designed for repetitive use for commuting and recreational use for
users across the entire Bay Area, the additional use by new development would not result in a
significant cumulative impact on this recreational facility. As with the proposed project, other
development projects proposed or under consideration nearby would be required to include on-site
recreational open space and amenities for the residents and employees who would occupy their
developments. For these reasons, and given that the proposed project would increase open space
within the project site and surrounding area, the proposed project, in combination with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative
recreational facilities impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation
is required.
4.10.10 Utilities
4.10.10.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221
Senate Bill (SB) 610 requires cities and counties to confirm through a water supply assessment
(WSA) that sufficient water supply sources are available before certain large development are
approved (see California Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915). The WSA for a project must
be included in that project’s CEQA documentation. A WSA must be prepared if a project includes,
among other things: (1) the equivalent demand of 500 residential units; or (2) a shopping center or
business establishment that employs more than 1,000 persons or has a floor space of more than
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-65 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
500,000 square feet; or (3) a commercial office building that employees more than 1,000 persons or
has a floor space of more than 250,000 square feet. A WSA is not required for the proposed project
because the proposed project would result in approximately 731 net new employees at the project
site and would include approximately 208,800 square foot office/R&D space, which would be less
than the 1,000 persons or 250,000 square feet of floor space associated with a commercial office
building use under SB 610. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in the equivalent
water demand of 500 residential units.62 Therefore, the proposed project would not meet any of the
requirements for the preparation of a WSA.
SB 221 requires a water supply verification, which is a letter of assurance for water from a water
purveyor. A water supply verification is prepared to support approval of a tentative map. A water
supply verification s not required for the proposed project because the proposed project would not
require approval of a tentative tract map.
Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the Integrated
Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and
mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste (from 1990 levels),
beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. In 2006, SB 1016 updated the
requirements. The new per capita disposal and goal measurement system moves the emphasis from
an estimated diversion measurement number to an actual disposal measurement number, along
with an evaluation of program implementation efforts. These two factors will help determine each
jurisdiction’s progress toward achieving AB 939 diversion goals. The 50 percent diversion
requirement is now measured in terms of per capita disposal, expressed as pounds per day. Under
the SB 1016 measurement system, a City is required to annually dispose of an amount equal to or
less than its “50 percent equivalent per capita disposal target,” as calculated by CalRecycle.
Title 24
In accordance with CCR Title 24, part 6 (last amended in 2019, effective January 1, 2020), buildings
constructed after June 30, 1977, must comply with the standards identified in CCR title 24. The code
covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation,
material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. Title 24 requires
the inclusion of state-of-the-art energy conservation features in building designs and construction,
such as specific energy-conserving design features and non-depletable energy resources. In
addition, it must be demonstrated that a building would comply with a designated energy budget.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen Code). Unless otherwise noted in a regulation, all newly constructed
buildings in California are subject to the requirements of the CALGreen Code.
62 As shown in Table 4.10-6, the proposed project would result in a net increase in water consumption of 15,132
gallons per day. A 500-residential unit project would consume approximately 150 to 250 acre-feet per year (or
133,911 to 223,186 gallons per day) assuming 0.3 to 0.5 acre-feet of water per year per dwelling unit “depending
upon several factors” according to the Department of Water Resources Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill
610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the equivalent water demand
of 500 residential units.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-66 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) is a comprehensive three-bill
package that Governor Jerry Brown signed into California state law in September 2014. The
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act provides a framework for sustainable management of
groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention only if necessary
to protect the resource. The plan is intended to ensure a reliable groundwater water supply for
California for years to come. SGMA requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies (GSA), which are required to adopt groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to manage the
sustainability of groundwater basins. The adoption of a GSP is required for all high- and medium-
priority basins as identified by DWR or submit an alternative to a GSP. SGMA also requires
governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring
groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires every public and private urban water supplier
that directly or indirectly provides water for municipal purposes to prepare and adopt an urban
water management plan (UWMP). This plan is required to be updated every five years, in years
ending with “0” or “5.” The UWMP must include a description of the reliability of the water supply
and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage (to the extent practicable) and provide data for
average, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years as well as an urban water shortage contingency
analysis.
The California Water Service Company prepared the last UWMP in 2015 for the South San Francisco
District, providing information about the district’s historical and projected water demands, water
supplies, supply reliability and vulnerability, water shortage contingency planning, and demand
management programs. The plan is used as a long-range planning document by the California Water
Service Company for water supply and system planning.
NPDES Permits
Refer to Section 4.10.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this draft EIR, for a discussion of the NPDES
permit applicable to the proposed project.
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The General Plan contains a Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element, which
outlines policies relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities. The
General Plan contains a Health and Safety Element, which acknowledges the importance of reducing
solid waste. The General Plan includes the following policy applicable to utilities and service
systems:
l Policy 5.3-G-1: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply
system to meet projected needs.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-67 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l Policy 5.3-G-2: Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed
development.
l Policy 5.3-G-3: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing water
service to new development.
l Policy 5.3-I-2: Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote
the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major
alterations and additions to existing buildings.
l Policy 5.3-I-3: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with
providing water service to new development in South San Francisco.
l Policy 5.3-G-4: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater
system to meet projected needs.
l Policy 5.3-G-5: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing wastewater
service to new development.
l Policy 5.3-G-6: Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices.
l Policy 5.3-I-5: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with
providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco.
l Policy 5.3-I-7: Encourage new projects in the East of 101 Area Plan that are likely to generate
large quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pretreatment, or
other means as necessary.
l Policy 8.3-G-1: Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle
those materials that are used to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
l Policy 8.3-I-1: Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and
complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
East of 101 Sewer System Management Plan
The City completed a Sewer System Management Plan for the east portion of the City (East of 101
Area) in September 2002 with subsequent updates in 2007 and 2011. The updates identified
capacity deficiencies in the existing wastewater collection system and recommended improvements
intended to mitigate deficiencies and serve future redevelopments.
Recognizing the importance of planning, developing, and financing system facilities to provide
reliable sewer collection service to existing customers and for servicing anticipated growth, the
City’s latest Sewer System Management Plan was revised and adopted in November 2019. The
purpose of the Sewer System Management Plan is to provide a plan and schedule to manage,
operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system. The primary objective is to eliminate
sanitary sewer overflows and mitigate any sanitary sewer overflows that occur.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-68 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Climate Action Plan63
The City’s CAP, adopted in 2014 and discussed in greater detail in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, of this draft EIR includes goals, policies, and strategies to reduce the City’s GHG emissions,
in compliance with AB 32 and SB 375.
The CAP provides guidance for a scientific and regulatory framework, a GHG emissions inventory, a
GHG reduction strategy, adaptation and resiliency, and implementation. The CAP incorporates several
policies regarding water usage and diversion of solid waste, including the policies listed below.
l Measure 5.1: Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials to
achieve a 75% diversion of landfilled waste by 2020.
o Continue to enforce the existing construction and demolition recycling ordinance, requiring
100% of inert waste and 65% of non-inert waste to be recycled from all eligible projects.
l Measure 6.1: Reduce water demand. Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following:
o Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features.
o Limiting turf area in commercial and large multi-family projects.
o Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise.
o Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
o Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
o Installing drip irrigation systems.
o Reducing impervious surfaces.
l Measure 6.2: Provide alternative water resources for irrigation.
o Create water policies for the stormwater management strategy that seek to capture storm
runoff (e.g., bioswale, rainwater collection, and irrigation programs).
o Continue to implement the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines.
The CAP includes a Development Checklist for City staff to use to identify applicable CAP measures
for discretionary projects and required mitigation standards. The Development Checklist serves
as the summary of project-level standards from the CAP. Criteria applicable to utilities and service
systems include, but are not limited to, the following questions:
l Will certification of the building be sought under Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) or other green building criteria?
l Will any water features exceed CALGreen standards?
l Will the project incorporate low-impact development practices?
l Will any xeriscaping be installed?
l Will captured rainwater or graywater be used for irrigation?
63 City of South San Francisco. 2014. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. Prepared by PMC. Available:
at https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=5640. Accessed: May 8, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-69 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
The South San Francisco Municipal Code, chapter 14, Water and Sewage, establishes regulations
including, but not limited to, stormwater management and control, water quality control, sewer rates,
sewer lateral construction, maintenance, and inspection, and associated impact fees for use of the
City’s water and sewage utilities. Specifically, section 4, Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control, is intended to protect and enhance the water quality of the City’s watercourses, water bodies,
and wetlands in a manner that is pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act. The purpose of
this section is to eliminate non-stormwater discharges to the separate municipal storm sewer, control
the discharge to the separate municipal storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials
other than stormwater, and reduce the pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, the City Municipal Code, chapter 15, section 60, Recycling and Diversion of
Debris from Construction and Demolition, establishes regulations for recycling and the diversion of
debris generated from construction and demolition. Specifically, the code details diversion
requirements, such as submitting and completing a waste management plan, directing 100 percent of
building materials to reuse or recycling facilities approved by the City, and either recycling all mixed
debris to recycling facilities or separating/directing non-building materials to recycling facilities at a
diversion rate of 65 percent.
4.10.10.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant utilities
impact if it would:
l Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
l Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
l Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments;
l Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or
l Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.
4.10.10.3 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on the wet utilities memorandum and the sanitary
sewer analyses prepared for the proposed project. 64,65 In addition, evaluation of the proposed project
is based on dry utilities and wet utilities demand and generation estimates provided by the project
sponsor. The estimate of solid waste that would be generated by the proposed project is based on
generation rates provided by CalRecycle.
64 BKF. 2020. 701 and 751 Gateway Boulevard, South San Francisco Wet Utilities. March 5.
65 BKF. 2020. 751 Gateway Blvd – Sanitary Sewer Analyses. March 27.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-70 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.10.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact UT-1: The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant)
Existing water, stormwater, sanitary sewer system, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications
facilities (i.e., lines) would continue to the serve the project site. New on-site facilities would be
connected to new services through the installation of new, localized connections. Expansion or an
increase in capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. The
project could include off-site infrastructure improvements outside of the project site but within the
Gateway Campus.
Based on the proposed on-site and off-site utility infrastructure described below, implementation of
the project would result in the construction of utility facilities.
l Potable Water: New water utilities would be placed around the perimeter of the project site
and throughout the site. A new 6-inch lateral would connect to the existing 12-inch lateral on the
project site. Two new 8-inch laterals for fire needs would be constructed as part of the project.
One 8-inch lateral would connect to the existing 12-inch lateral on the project site. The other 8-
inch lateral would connect to the 12-inch water main in Gateway Boulevard.
l Stormwater: The existing 18-inch storm pipe on the project site would be relocated around the
proposed building and service and loading yard. New storm drain collector pipes and
biotreatment areas (discussed above) would be constructed within the project site to drain to
the existing 18-inch storm drain line in Gateway Boulevard.
l Sanitary Sewer System: The 12-inch gravity pipe outfall in Gateway Boulevard may need to be
upsized as part of the proposed project. A new 8-inch lateral would be constructed on the
project site to serve the proposed building. In addition, the existing 8-inch lateral that serves the
701 Gateway Boulevard building would need to be replaced with a 10-inch lateral.
l Natural Gas and Electric: The project would construct 4-inch electrical conduits to connect to
the existing electricity lines in Gateway Boulevard. In addition, the project would construct a 4-
inch natural gas lateral to connect to a new natural gas meter that would connect to the existing
4-inch natural gas line in Gateway Boulevard.
l Telecommunications: The project would construct 3- to 4-inch communication conduits to
connect to the existing communication lines in Gateway Boulevard.
The installation or expansion of utility facilities would require excavation, trenching, soil movement,
and other activities that are typical of development projects in South San Francisco, as discussed in
detail in this draft EIR as part of the assessment of overall project impacts. As discussed in Section
4.2, Air Quality, construction of the proposed project, including construction or expansion of utilities
as a component of the proposed project, would not generate significant fugitive dust and criteria air
pollutants, violate an air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would control fugitive dust and reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. As discussed in Section 4.8, Noise and Vibration, construction of the
proposed project, including construction or expansion of utilities as a component of the proposed
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-71 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
project, would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels and
would not violate the applicable local standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1
would reduce construction noise and reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. As discussed
in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, construction of the proposed project, including
construction or expansion of utilities as a component of the proposed project, would not cause
significant impacts on the transportation and circulation network because construction activities
would be temporary, and the flow of traffic would not be disrupted. In summary, impacts related to
the construction of new utility facilities for the proposed project are addressed as part of the
analysis of construction impacts for the proposed project as a whole. The installation or expansion
of any utility facilities for the project would not result in additional significant impacts that are not
otherwise disclosed elsewhere in this draft EIR.
The City’s Sewer System Management Plan provides a discussion of the East of 101 Sewer Impact
Fee Fund, which uses fees to improve the sewer infrastructure where new business development
has shown the need for an improved sewer system, and the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
The City’s Capital Improvement Program was adopted by the City on June 15, 2017, to assist the City
in planning and constructing the collection system improvements through the 2040 scenario, and
presents the methodologies for developing equitable distribution of costs. The capital improvement
costs account for project-related costs associated with engineering design, project administration,
construction management, inspection, and legal costs. The Sewer System Management Plan
indicates that capacity allocation analysis is needed to identify improvement funding sources, and to
establish a nexus between development impact fees and improvements needed to service growth. In
compliance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code sections 66000, et. seq.
(also known as AB 1600), the analysis differentiates between the needs of existing users and those
of anticipated future developments. If required, the costs of capital improvements would be
captured through payment of the City’s Sewer System Capacity Study and Improvement Fee (the
“Sewer Capacity Fee”), based on the square footage of proposed project new uses, pursuant to the
City’s Master Fee Schedule and Title 14 “Water and Sewage” of the Municipal Code.
Based on the analysis above, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact UT-2: The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple
dry years. (Less than Significant)
Construction
Demolition and construction activities for the project would result in a temporary increase in water
demand. Activities such as dust control, concrete mixing, equipment and site cleanup, irrigation for
the establishment of plants and landscaping, and water line testing and flushing would occur
periodically throughout the project’s construction period. Water demand during construction would
be minimal and temporary, and would be served utilizing the same infrastructure and sources
described in the section below as would be utilized during project operation. The water demand
generated during project construction would be less than the water demand generated during
project operation. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project during
construction and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-72 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Operation
Table 4.10-6 provides an estimate of the existing and proposed water demand at the project site. As
shown, the proposed project would result in a net increase in water demand of approximately 15,132
gallons per day, or 17 acre-feet per year.
The project site is served by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), and is located in the
South San Francisco District, which includes South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City,
and Broadmoor.66 Cal Water provides water through a combination of purchased water from the
Table 4.10-6. Estimated Existing and Proposed Water Demand
Feature
Existing/
Proposed Project
(square feet) Generation Rate1
Water Demand
(gallons per
day)
Existing uses at 701 Gateway
Boulevard (to remain)
170,235 0.0547 gallon per day per
square foot (for office use)
9,312
Proposed uses at
751 Gateway Boulevard
208,800
R&D 118,000 0.082 gallon per day per
square foot (for lab use)
9,676
Office 78,700 0.0547 gallon per day per
square foot (for office use)
4,305
Retail (including café
and fitness center)
12,100 0.110 gallon per day per
square foot (for amenity use)
1,331
Total Project Net Increase in Water Demand 15,132
Notes:
1 The generation rates are based on Table 18-2 in the draft EIR prepared for the Genentech Master Plan Update
available at http://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/edoc/425577/18%20-%20Utilities.pdf. For the purposes of
this analysis, the generation rates were converted from per year to per day.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and groundwater from Cal Water owned wells.
The water purchased from SFPUC provides approximately 85 percent of the District’s water demand
each year, is shared among three Cal Water districts (Bear Gulch, Mid-Peninsula, and South San
Francisco), and is delivered through a network of pipelines, tunnels, and treatment plants. The
amount of water allocated to the South San Francisco district varies each year depending on
hydrology (i.e. amount of water supply available), and physical facilities, among other parameters.
However, SFPUC historically has been able to meet the water demand in its service area (including
drought years) through its watersheds, which include the Tuolumne River watershed, Alameda
Creek watershed, and San Mateo County watershed. Groundwater from the Westside Basin has
historically supplied anywhere between ten to fifteen percent of the South San Francisco district’s
water demand utilizing wells owned by Cal Water. Together, the water provided by the SFPUC and
Cal Water’s groundwater wells, generates a water supply of approximately 40,225 acre-feet for the
three Cal Water Districts.
66 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency. n.d. California Water Service—South San Francisco District.
Available: https://bawsca.org/members/profiles/cws-san-francisco. Accessed: March 9, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-73 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The project would increase water demand compared to existing conditions. However, the project
would not increase demand beyond that anticipated in the UWMP. Specifically, the total annual
potable water demand of the project (approximately 17 acre-feet) represents approximately 0.24
percent and 0.19 percent, of the 2015 and 2040 potable water demand, respectively, in the South
San Francisco District (7,064 acre-feet and 8,901 acre-feet).67 In addition, according to the UWMP,
the South San Francisco District would have adequate supplies through the planning horizon year of
2040 during average rainfall years for the City’s and the project’s water demands utilizing the
existing water purchased and supplied through the SFPUC and Cal Water’s groundwater wells. The
project would represent approximately 0.04 percent of the projected 41,767 acre-feet of water to be
supplied to Cal Water’s three districts in 2040. In addition, the proposed project would comply with
all applicable City and state water conservation measures, including title 24, part, 6, the California
Energy Code, with baseline standard requirements for energy efficiency; the 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards; and the 2019 CALGreen Code. Furthermore, the SFPUC and Cal Water have
plans to develop additional water supply sources in order to meet the increasing water demand and
dry-year demands throughout the San Francisco peninsula, including the City; these projects include
the Alameda Creek Recapture Project, Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project, and the
Bay Area Regional Desalination Project which would increase the amount of water supply available,
and would ultimately help to address water demand for the proposed project in the future.
Furthermore, the SFPUC and Cal Water have plans to develop additional water supply sources in
order to meet increasing water demand and dry-year demands; these projects include the Alameda
Creek Recapture Project, Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project, which would help to
offset water demand for the proposed project. Therefore, the water demand generated by the
proposed project would not exceed the supply or capacity of the water utility; this would be a less
than significant impact. No mitigation is required.
Impact UT-3: The proposed project would result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Less
than Significant)
Construction
Demolition and construction activities for the project would result in a temporary increase in
wastewater generation as a result of on-site construction workers. Wastewater generation during
construction would be minimal and temporary. In addition, construction workers typically use
portable toilets, which do not flow to the wastewater conveyance system. Therefore, sufficient
wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project during construction and this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
According to the sanitary sewer analyses prepared for the proposed project, the wastewater collection
system that serves the project site is owned and operated by the City. The City’s collection system
includes a 10-inch force main that extends south along Gateway Boulevard from Lift Station No. 2 and
67 California Water Service. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan—South San Francisco District. Available:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2015/bay/South_San_Francisco/2015_Urban_Water_Management_
Plan_Final_(SSF).pdf. Accessed: March 9, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-74 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
it outfalls to the 12-inch sewer main in Gateway Boulevard adjacent to the project site. The 12-inch
gravity line extends west to connect to a 15-inch line in Gateway Boulevard, which conveys sewer flow
to the south to East Grand Avenue via an 18-inch main. The 18-inch main continues to the northeast
along East Grand Avenue until it discharges to a 27-inch main. All sewer flows generated are ultimately
conveyed to Lift Station No. 4, which discharges to the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) where it is
treated and discharged to the San Francisco Bay. According to the 2017 Master Plan, Lift Station 4 can
convey 160 percent of the expected 2040 sewer peak flows with one pump out of service (which
corresponds to a surplus of 4.9 million gallons per day).
The 12-inch main in Gateway Boulevard receives flow from Lift Station No. 2. Lift Station No. 2 has a
10-inch force main (approximately 610 feet) that connects to the 12-inch line serving the project site.
Lift Station No. 2 serves sewershed Basins 1, 2 and 14; it is approximately 194 acres. Downstream of
Lift Station No. 2, the 12-inch main serves additional parcels in Basin 4, which drain by gravity to the
12-inch main. Altogether, the 12-inch main in Gateway Boulevard accepts 275 acres of sewershed.
A total of four parcels contribute to the flow in the Gateway Boulevard 12-inch main in addition
to flow from Lift Station No. 2: 700, 701, 750, and 751 Gateway Boulevard. The proposed project
would result in a peak dry weather flow of 149,930 gallons per day (0.16 million gallons per day)
and a peak wet weather flow of 249,883 gallons per day (0.26 million gallons per day). The
increase in flow from the proposed project would be minimal compared to the overall flow
through the existing system, which would have peak dry weather flow of 2,320,331 gallons per
day (2.32 million gallons per day) and a peak wet weather flow of 4,333,885 gallons per day
(4.33 million gallons per day). With the proposed project, the existing system would still operate
within criteria established in the 2017 Master Plan to assess capacity impacts.
As discussed above, wastewater from the proposed project would be treated at the WQCP, which
is monitored by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB to ensure compliance with the facility’s NPDES
wastewater discharge permit. The WQCP design capacity for average dry weather flow is 13
million gallons per day.68 The average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 million gallons
per day.69 Peak wet weather flows can exceed 60 million gallons per day. With implementation of
the project, the WQCP would still operate below its design capacity. Therefore, sufficient
wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project during operation and this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact UT-4: The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals. In addition, the proposed project would comply
with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste (Less than Significant)
Construction
Demolition and construction activities for the project would result in a temporary increase in solid
waste generation. Solid waste generation would occur periodically during construction. However, the
68 Schumacker, Brian, Plant Superintendent. City of South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant,
South San Francisco, CA. May 5, 2020. e-mail communication to Atteberry, Devan.
69 City of South San Francisco Public Works. 2020. Water Quality Control Plant. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant. Accessed: April 28, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-75 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
increase would be minimal and temporary. In addition, 100 percent of all inert solids (building
materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (all other materials) would be recycled as required by the
City under Chapter 15.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project
would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure during construction and would not conflict with solid waste regulations; this impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
The project site would continue to be served by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue
Line Transfer Inc. The South San Francisco Scavenger Company would transport all solid waste
generated at the project site to the Blue Line Transfer Facility (approximately one mile south of the
project site). This facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day.70 Any trash remaining after the
usable materials have been separated at the transfer facility are transported to the Corinda Los Trancos
(Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill or the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill.
As of 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill
had a remaining capacity of approximately 22.18 million cubic yards.71 Ox Mountain Sanitary
Landfill has a maximum permitted disposal capacity of 3,598 tons per day and is estimated to
close in 2034. As of 2014 (the most recent year for which data are available), the Newby Island
Sanitary Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 21.2 million cubic yards.72 The
Newby Island Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day
and is estimated to close in 2041.
Operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 6,798 pounds of solid waste per
day (approximately 3.4 tons of solid waste per day).73,74 The solid waste generated by the proposed
project would represent approximately 0.09 percent of the maximum daily intake allowed at each of
the landfills. The proposed project would not be a substantial contributor to the City’s solid waste at
Blue Line Transfer, Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, or Newby Island Sanitary Landfill.
Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City is regulated by the Municipal Code, particularly
Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative disposal or recycling
rates, the project site would not be subject to diversion requirements. However, under the Municipal
Code, the proposed project would be required to have its solid waste, including construction,
demolition debris, and recyclable materials, collected by the South San Francisco Scavenger
70 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Blue Line MRF and TS. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/41-AA-0185. Accessed: March 9, 2020.
71 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn).
Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/ Directory/41-AA-0002/. Accessed: March 9, 2020.
72 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/ Directory/43-AN-0003/Detail. Accessed: March 9, 2020.
73 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. South San Francisco Jurisdiction
Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006. Accessed:
March 9, 2020. Solid waste generation was estimated for the project using the 2015 generation rate of
9.3 pounds per employee per day. There would be approximately 731 employees as part of the proposed
project; therefore, (9.5 pounds per day/employee) x (731 employees) = 6,798.3 pounds of waste per day.
74 For the purposes of this analysis, the 2015 jurisdiction diversion/disposal rate report year (the most recently
approved report year) was used; the 2020 report year is still pending review.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-76 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Company. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the Municipal Code would be
met by South San Francisco Scavenger Company. In addition, eligible projects (2,000 square feet or
more) must submit a Waste Management Plan. AB 939 requires that local jurisdictions divert at
least 50 percent of all solid waste by 2000. Furthermore, as described in the CAP, Measure 5.1, the
project sponsor would be required to develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and
reuse of materials to achieve a generalized rate of 75 percent diversion of landfilled waste.
Based on the analysis above, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure during operation and would not conflict
with solid waste regulations; this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-UT-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on utilities
and service systems. (Less than Significant)
The cumulative geographic contexts for utilities and service systems are the service territories of the
utility providers. Over time, growth throughout the City will result in increased demand for water,
wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications. As
shown in Table 4.10-2 in Section 4.10.7, Population and Housing, of this draft EIR, ABAG projects the
City’s population will increase by approximately 11,910, from 68,105 in 2020 to 80,015 in 2040. In
addition, ABAG projects the number of jobs in the City will increase by 7,865, from 46,365 in 2020 to
54,230 in 2040. Citywide growth would also generate increased demand for utilities. The cumulative
projects located within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5,
Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
Potable Water
The cumulative projects would increase demands on water supplies as well as water infrastructure
and treatment facilities. The reasonably foreseeable future projects that involve large commercial,
residential, or office uses would be required to request a WSA from the California Water Service
Company to identify project-specific impacts.75 California Water Service Company has incorporated
the demand from other development projects in its future water service projections. As discussed
under Impact UT-2, according to the UWMP, the South San Francisco District would have adequate
supplies through the planning horizon year of 2040 during average rainfall years for the City’s and
the project’s water demands utilizing existing water infrastructure. As mentioned previously, the
project would represent approximately 0.04 percent of the projected 41,767 acre-feet of water to be
supplied to Cal Water’s three districts in 2040. In addition, SFPUC and Cal Water have plans to
expand water supplies through several water supply development projects, which would ultimately
help to address increasing water demand, and offset water demand generated by the project.
Furthermore, the proposed project and the reasonably foreseeable future projects would comply
with all applicable City and state water conservation measures, including title 24, part, 6, the
California Energy Code, with baseline standard requirements for energy efficiency; the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and the 2019 CALGreen Code. For these reasons, the proposed
75 A WSA is required for projects with, among other things: (1) demand equivalent to 500 residential units, (2) a
shopping/business center that employs more than 1,000 people or has a floor space of 500,000 square feet or
greater, or (3) a commercial office building with more than 1,000 employees or floor space totaling 250,000
square feet or greater. If prepared for a project, the WSA determines if the existing water supply is adequate
for the proposed project.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-77 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would
not result in a significant cumulative water supply or water supply facilities impact. The cumulative
impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Stormwater
The cumulative projects would be likely constructed on infill sites in highly urbanized areas
where there is a substantial amount of existing impervious surface area. All cumulative projects
would be required to include post-construction stormwater management features, such as LID
measures, to reduce flows to pre-project conditions. New projects would be subject to the
requirements of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit, the Construction General Permit, and the
City’s General Plan and Municipal Code related to protecting water resources. Thus, the proposed
project, in combination with the reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not substantially
increase impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. Post-construction peak stormwater
flows would not increase compared to existing conditions. Similar to the proposed project, the
reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to comply with all BMPs and the City’s
standard conditions regarding stormwater drainage and surface runoff detention measures
(including Condition No. 13, Condition No. 23, and Condition No. 24). For these reasons, the
proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects, would not result in a significant cumulative stormwater facilities impact. The cumulative
impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Wastewater
The cumulative projects would increase the amount of water used and increase demands on
wastewater infrastructure and treatment facilities. The Sewer System Management Plan projects
future land use development in the East of 101 Area to the year 2040, and identifies components
for the system that would require improvement to support future growth. Those improvements
include capacity (pipe diameter) upgrades, slope improvements, and lift station improvements.
Similar to the proposed projects, the reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to
contribute to the Capital Improvement Program. Furthermore, as a standard condition of
approval, the City would require the proponents of each project to provide project-specific sewer
capacity studies. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative
wastewater generation and facilities impact. The cumulative impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Natural Gas, Electricity, and Telecommunications
The cumulative projects would likely be constructed on infill sites in highly urbanized areas; it is
anticipated that these projects would not substantially increase electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications demands. Similar to the proposed project, the cumulative projects would
comply with all applicable City and state water conservation measures, including title 24, part, 6,
the California Energy Code, with baseline standard requirements for energy efficiency; the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and the 2019 CALGreen Code. For these reasons, the
proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects, would not result in a significant cumulative natural gas, electricity, and
telecommunications demand and facilities impact. The cumulative impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-78 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Solid Waste
In 2015 (the most recent year for which approved data are available), the average per capita
residential disposal rate in South San Francisco was 6.9 pounds per day, which met South San
Francisco’s target identified by CalRecycle of 6.9 pounds per day.76 For the employment sector, the
average disposal rate was 9.3 pounds per day per employee, which did not meet the 9.0 pounds
per day per employee target. The cumulative projects would incrementally increase the amount of
solid waste generated by increasing the number of employees and residents in the City;
excavation, demolition, and remodeling activities associated with growth would also increase
total solid waste generation. However, the increasing rate of diversion citywide, achieved through
recycling, composting, and other methods, would decrease the total amount of waste deposited in
landfills. The proposed project, in combination with the reasonably foreseeable future projects,
would not cause a significant impact on regional landfill capacity because the projects would be
required to comply with the City’s waste reduction and diversion measure (CAP Measure 5.1). In
addition, 100 percent of all inert solids (building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (all
other materials) generated during construction of the cumulative projects would be recycled as
required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, similar to the
proposed project. Compliance with such regulatory requirements would reduce the project’s and
the cumulative projects’ contribution to overall solid waste volumes generated during
construction and operation. Given the future long-term capacity available at Ox Mountain Sanitary
Landfill, Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, and other area landfills, the proposed project and
cumulative projects would be served by a landfill with adequate permitted capacity to
accommodate their solid waste disposal needs. For these reasons, the proposed project, in
combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not
result in a solid waste impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
4.10.11 Wildfire
4.10.11.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Government Code 51177
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) are defined by Government Code section 51177 as
areas that have been designated by the director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE) as having the highest probability for wildfire. The designation of these zones
is based on statewide criteria and the severity of the fire hazard in the area. The zones have
characteristics that have been identified by CAL FIRE as major causes for the spread of wildfires,
such as fuel load, slope, and weather. Other factors, such as wind, are also considered. Fire Hazard
Severity Zone maps are produced and maintained for each county in California.
76 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. South San Francisco Jurisdiction
Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/
JurisdictionDiversionPost2006. Accessed: March 9, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-79 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
State Responsibility Areas Public Resources Code 4102
State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) are defined by PRC section 4102 as areas of the state in which the
State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined that the financial responsibility for
preventing and suppressing fires lies with the state. Specifically, SRAs are lands in California where
CAL FIRE has legal and financial responsibility for wildfire protection. SRA lands are usually
unincorporated areas of a county and not federally owned. These areas contain wildland vegetation
cover, housing densities lower than three units per acre, and, typically, some sort of watershed or
range/forage value. Where SRAs encompass developments or a built environment, the local
government agency assumes responsibility through a local responsibility area (LRA) or contracts
with CAL FIRE.
LRAs do not meet the criteria for SRAs or federal responsibility areas. LRAs are typically cities,
cultivated agricultural lands, and nonflammable areas in unincorporated portions of a county but
can include flammable vegetation and wildland-urban interface areas. LRA fire protection is
provided by local fire departments, fire protection districts, county fire departments, or through
contract with CAL FIRE.
Regional
County of San Mateo Emergency Operations Plan
The 2015 County of San Mateo Emergency Operations Plan establishes policies and procedures and
assigns responsibilities to ensure effective management of emergency response operations within
the San Mateo County Operational Area. Under the Emergency Operations Plan, the emergency
management organization in San Mateo County identifies potential threats to life, property and the
environment, and develops plans and procedures to protect, prevent and mitigate those assets from
potential hazards (e.g., wildfires).
Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the
City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging
whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and
policy standards. The General Plan contains a Health and Safety Element, which acknowledges and
mitigates the risks posed by hazards (e.g., fire). While the General Plan does not include policies
specific to wildfire, it includes the following policies applicable to fire risk:
l Policy 8.4-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco.
l Policy 8.4-G-2: Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens’ needs.
l Policy 8.4-I-2: Explore incentives or programs as part of a comprehensive fire hazard management
program to encourage private landowners to reduce fire hazards on their properties.
l Policy 8.4-I-4:77 Require site design features, fire-retardant building materials, and adequate access
as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire in the City.
77 Policy 8.4-I-4 is misnumbered in the General Plan as the second Policy “8.4-I-3”.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-80 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.10.11.2 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant wildfire
impact if it is located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, and would:
l Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
l Due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire;
l Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities, that may exacerbate the fire risk or
result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment; or
l Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
4.10.11.3 Approach to Analysis
According to CAL FIRE, the City, including the project site, is in a non-VHFHSZ.78 The nearest
VHFHSZ is approximately 5.3 miles southwest of the project site, near the City of Millbrae. In
addition, the entire City, including the project site, is in an LRA, not an SRA.79 The nearest SRA, San
Bruno Mountain State and County Park, is approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the project site.
Given the project site’s proximity to an SRA (i.e., less than 1 mile), the evaluation of the proposed
project considers each of the thresholds above. Evaluation of the proposed project is based on CAL
FIRE’S Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps, the County of San Mateo’s Emergency Operations Plan,
and the South San Francisco General Plan.
4.10.11.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact WF-1: The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant)
The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access
to the site or surrounding area. The project would demolish a surface parking lot and construct a
seven-story office and R&D building with parking. The existing access to the project site (two
driveways on Gateway Boulevard, one driveway from the internal access drive south of the building at
951 Gateway Boulevard, and one driveway on an unnamed street that connects Poletti Way to
Gateway Boulevard) would be retained under the proposed project. Emergency vehicle access to the
project site would be provided by Gateway Boulevard and the parking lot to be constructed north of
the proposed building. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to comply with the
California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements that require on site access for
emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval.
78 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in
SRA. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-
codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed: February 19, 2020.
79 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2008. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-
engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed: February 19, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-81 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
During project construction, traffic levels would increase minimally, which is not expected to
degrade traffic operations. Furthermore, emergency response access during the construction
period would not be impeded significantly. The project would not involve development of a
structure that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No streets would be closed, rerouted, or
altered substantially. The 731 net new employees (refer to Section 4.10.7, Population and Housing,
of this draft EIR) may slightly increase demand during an evacuation. Therefore, the project would
not interfere with the County of San Mateo’s Emergency Operations Plan, the City’s Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) or any evacuation route.80 Adequate access to the project site
and surrounding area would be maintained. The City further requires that upon completion of the
proposed building, occupancy is not allowed until a final inspection is made by the SSFFD, which
includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, the proposed project would have
a less-than-significant impact on a statewide or locally adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation is required.
Impact WF-2: The proposed project would not, because of slope, prevailing winds, or other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (Less than Significant)
As previously stated, the project site is not in a VHFHSZ or an SRA; therefore, the risk of wildfire is
low. In addition, the project site and surrounding buildings are separated by paved parking areas,
landscaping, and building setbacks that reduce wildfire risks. Furthermore, the project site is
relatively flat and would be properly irrigated and maintained, which would also reduce the risk
of wildfire. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposing
project employees to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire. No mitigation is required.
Impact WF-3: The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines, or other utilities, that may exacerbate the fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts on the environment. (No Impact)
The project would be served by existing water, wastewater, stormwater, natural gas, electric, and
telecommunications infrastructure. New on-site facilities would be connected to new services
through the installation of new, localized connections. Expansion or an increase in capacity of off-
site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. The project could include off-
site infrastructure improvements outside of the project site but within the Gateway Campus.
The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of any infrastructure that
would exacerbate fire risk. The project, including infrastructure upgrades, would be completed in
conformance with the South San Francisco Fire Code to reduce potential fire hazards. Therefore, the
proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would
exacerbate the fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment and there
would be no impact. No mitigation is required.
80 The CERT Program trains individuals within the City’s neighborhoods, businesses and industries in emergency
preparedness and basic disaster response techniques. After graduating from training, the CERT team meets
monthly to train on various emergency response skills such as shelter operations, communications, or
emergency operations center support.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Less-than-Significant Impacts
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.10-82 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Impact WF-4: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (No Impact)
The proposed project would be located on a developed parcel within the Gateway Campus, which
includes office, R&D, childcare, and amenity uses. The topography of the project site and
surrounding area is relatively flat. A portion of the project site would be graded and leveled during
construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of post-fire slope
instability or drainage changes and there would be no impact. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-WF-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on a
statewide or locally adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less
than Significant)
Although the City utilizes the Countywide Emergency Operations Plan, actual emergency response
and evacuation would be coordinated through the City CERT program. Therefore, the cumulative
geographic context for wildfire is the City. The cumulative projects located within approximately 0.5
mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.5, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this
draft EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
The proposed project would result in approximately 731 net new employees at the project site. As
discussed in Section 4.10.7, Population and Housing, of this draft EIR, the cumulative projects
would generate approximately 19,167 employees. The new employees generated by the proposed
project and the cumulative projects may increase demand during an evacuation. However, the City
requires that upon completion of the proposed building, occupancy is not allowed until a final
inspection is made by the SSFFD, which includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans. For
these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on a statewide or
locally adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The cumulative impact
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.