HomeMy WebLinkAbout101 Gull_Final EIR.pdf101 GULL DRIVE PROJECT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2021100227
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
March 2022
LAMPHIER - GREGORY
URBAN PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 510.535.6690
Contents
Chapters 1 through 8 can be found in the Draft EIR.
Page
Chapter 9: Introduction to the Final EIR
Purposeof the Final EIR.......................................................................................................................9-1
Summaryof the Project.......................................................................................................................9-1
EIRReview Process.............................................................................................................................9-1
ReportOrganization............................................................................................................................9-2
Chapter 10: Revisions to the Draft EIR
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................10-1
Revisions to the Draft EIR..................................................................................................................10-1
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................11-1
Listof Comments...............................................................................................................................11-1
Responseto Comments.....................................................................................................................11-1
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page i
�11
Introduction to the Final EIR
Purpose of the Final EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder (together "CEQA")
require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for any project which may have a
significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which,
according to CEQA are "to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information
about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the
significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project."
The information contained in this EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to enable the reader
to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts resulting from the
proposed project.
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) document, together with the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Draft EIR) published in December 2021, shall constitute the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed 101 Gull Drive Project ("project") in the City of South San
Francisco, California, pursuant to CEQA as amended (commencing with Section 21000 of the California
Public Resources Code) and the CEQA Guidelines. The project applicant is Sanfo Group, LLC. The Lead
Agency is the City of South San Francisco.
Summary of the Project
The full description of the project is included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. A brief summary is included
here for convenience.
The project site is located at 101 Gull Drive within the City of South San Francisco's "East of 101"
planning area. The 3.8 -acre project site is currently vacant. While the site is located along Gull Drive, it is
largely separated from the roadway by a grade change and steep slope. The project site is located
behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard.
The proposed project would involve the construction of a new 166,613 -square -foot, 7 -story,
office/research and development (R&D) building and an attached 4.5 -story 419 -stall parking garage. Site
improvements would also include open space, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian walkways,
and vehicular circulation elements, including a connection to Gull Drive.
EIR Review Process
Draft EIR
A Draft EIR was made available for public review in December 2021. During the public review period for
the Draft EIR, the City received one written comment.
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 9-1
Chapter 9: Introduction to the Final EIR
Final EIR
This Final EIR contains all comments received by the City on the Draft EIR and also includes responses to
these comments in Chapter 11. Revisions to the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 10 of this Final EIR.
The Planning Commission hearing to receive comments was held on February 3, 2022. No public
comments were received at the hearing and all oral comments and questions made by the Planning
Commission were either not related to the environmental analysis or were responded to at that hearing,
and no changes or revisions to the Draft EIR were required in response to those comments.
There are no text changes to the Draft EIR necessitated in response to written comments received on
the Draft EIR.
Some editorial revisions were made to the mitigation measure language to clarify the party responsible
for implementation. These revisions are detailed in Chapter 10.
None of the responses to comments or revisions contained in this Final EIR would be considered
"significant new information" under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and therefore no
recirculation of the Draft EIR is required.
The EIR will be presented to the City at a public hearing to consider certification of this document as a
technically adequate, full disclosure document consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Assuming
certification of this EIR as complete and adequate under CEQA, this Final EIR document together with
the Draft EIR will constitute the EIR for this project.
An EIR does not control the agency's ultimate discretion on the project. In accordance with California
law, the EIR must be certified before any action on the project can be taken. However, EIR certification
does not constitute project approval.
Report Organization
This Final EIR consists of the following chapters, commencing after Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR:
Chapter 9: Introduction to the Final EIR. This chapter outlines the purpose, organization, and scope of
the Final EIR document and important information regarding the public review and approval process.
Chapter 10: Revisions to the Draft EIR. This chapter includes corrections, clarifications or additions to
text contained in the Draft EIR based on comments received after the City's review.
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. This chapter provides reproductions of the letter
received on the Draft EIR. The response to the comments is also provided in this chapter immediately
following the comment letter.
Page 9-2 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR
Revisions to the Draft EIR
Introduction
The following are minor text changes, additions or modifications made to the Draft EIR for the 101 Gull
Drive Project. These changes were initiated by City staff. There are no revisions needed in response to
public comments received on the Draft EIR.
Comments, including the original location in the Draft EIR of the text to be changed, are in italics.
Deletions are noted by stFikethFeugh. Additions are underlined.
Lack of "Significant New Information"
This Final EIR provides substantial evidence that the information and revisions contained in this
document would not constitute "substantial new information" under CEQA and so would not require
recirculation of the Draft EIR under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. To that end, the following
conclusions can be made from information in this document:
(1) No new significant environmental impacts would result from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) No substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless new
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) There are no new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures required to lessen significant
environmental impacts of the revised project that the applicant declines to adopt.
(4) There is no information supporting a conclusion that the Draft EIR would be found to be
fundamentally inadequate and conclusory such that meaningful review was precluded.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
Changes to Chapter 2: Executive Summary
• Pages 2-4 through 2-8
Revisions are hereby made to Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures to be
consistent with specific revisions made to mitigation measures later in this chapter including: Mitigation
Measures Cul -1, Geo -1, Haz-2 and TR -2.
Changes to Chapter 4: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Page 4-14
Revisions are hereby made to Mitigation Measure Haz-2. These editorial revisions are made to clarify the
party responsible for implementation.
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 10-1
Chapter 10: Revisions to the Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure Haz-2: Adherence to Remediation Measures. AppliGant 9F pFejee+ spense~ The
project applicant / owner / sponsor shall ensure that project design and construction shall
incorporate the recommended remediation measures in an Amended Site Closure Plan and
Post -Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) approved by the San Mateo County Department of
Environmental Health, to avoid or reduce the hazards related to the presence of hazardous
materials (burn ash) and combustible vapor at this site. The remediation measures are
anticipated to include the following, based on the measures contained in the current PCMP:
Changes to Chapter 5: Transportation
Page 5-16
Revisions are hereby made to Mitigation Measure TR -2. These editorial revisions are made to clarify the
party responsible for implementation.
Mitigation Measure TR -2: First- and Last -Mile Strategies. The prejeet spensef protect applicant / owner
sponsor shall coordinate with the City for the pFejeet spensef prosect applicant / owner /
sponsor to implement the following off-site improvements to support the project's first- and
last -mile and active transportation connections necessary to support reductions in Home -
Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled.
The proiect applicant / owner / sponsor shall additionally coordinate with the
City for the project sponsor to pay fair -share contribution toward the following off-site
improvements to support the project's first and last -mile and active transportation
connections necessary to support reductions in Home- Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled.
Changes to Initial Study (Draft EIR Appendix B)
Appendix 8 Page 24
Revisions are hereby made to Mitigation Measure Cul -1. These editorial revisions are made to clarify the
party responsible for implementation.
Cul -1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A The project
applicant / owner / sponsor shall retain or ensure that a qualified archaeologist &W4 is
retained to conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to
construction and ground -disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information
about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and
procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any
personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils.
Appendix 8 Page 28
Revisions are hereby made to Mitigation Measure Geo -1. These editorial revisions are made to clarify the
party responsible for implementation.
Geo -1: Compliance with a design -level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed
Professional Engineer. PThe project applicant / owner / sponsor shall ensure that proper
Page 10-2 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR
Chapter 10: Revisions to the Draft EIR
foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer.
The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate
seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 10-3
Chapter 10: Revisions to the Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 10-4 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR
11
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Introduction
This chapter contains responses to the comments on the Draft EIR.
Letters received during a Draft EIR review period do not always address environmental matters and
sometimes reference matters related to the project that are outside the realm of environmental review.
As the environmental review document, the responses to comments included here are intentionally
focused on matters specific to the environmental review that is required under CEQA. All comments are
a part of the record and will be considered by the City if and when project approvals are presented for
their consideration.
The City of South San Francisco received one comment letter during the public review period of the
Draft EIR for the project.
List of Comments
Comment Letter
The following comment letter was received by the City during the Draft EIR review period.
Letter A: San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
Planning Commission Comment Hearing
A Planning Commission hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR was held on February 3, 2022. No
public comments were received at the hearing and all oral comments and questions made by the
Planning Commission were either not related to the environmental analysis or were responded to at
that hearing, and no changes or revisions to the Draft EIR were required in response to those comments.
Response to Comments
The following pages contain the one comment letter received and the City's response to it pursuant to
CEQA Guideline section 15132(d).
For the comments in this letter, the information provided in the responses is deemed adequate in itself,
and modification of the Draft EIR text was not necessary.
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 11-1
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Letter A
February 9, 2022
Stephanie Skangos. Associate Planner
Cite of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco. California 94080
San Francisco International Airport
TRANSMITTED VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL
stephan ie. skangos(d ssf.net
Subject. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Comments for the 101 Gull Drive Project
San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) staff have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) of for the 101 Gull Drive Project (the Proposed Project), located in the City of South San
Francisco. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the DEIR.
The Proposed Project is located at t01 Gull Drive (Assessors Parcel Number 0 t5-082-250), bctween Oyster
Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard, in the City of South San Francisco. The Proposed Project would
construct a new 166,513 -square -foot, seven -story, office/research and development building and an attached
4.5 -story, 419 -stall parking garage. Site improvements would include open space, landscaping, outdoor
seating areas. pedestrian walkways. and vehicular circulation elements. The maximum height of the
Proposed Project would be 128 feet above ground level.
The Proposed Project site is inside Airport Influence Area B as defined by the Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan fnr the Environs ql Son Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP. The
Proposed Project site would be located outside the 65 decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) contour and the Safety compatibility zones, and therefore would appear to be consistent with the
Noise and Safety Compatibility policies adopted in the SFO ALUCP.
As described in Exhibit IV -17 of the ALUCP (see Attachment), the critical aeronautical surfaces at the
Proposed Project location is at an elevation of bctwcen approximately 470 and 485 feet above mean sea level
(AMSC) as defined from the origin of the North American Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Given that the ground
elevation at the Proposed Project site is around 32 feet AMSL (NAV D88), the heights of the buildings, as
currently defined (as 128 feet above ground level), would be below the critical aeronautical surfaces and the
Proposed Project would be compatible with the Airspace Compatibility Policies of the SFO ALUCP, subject
to the issuance of a Determination of No Hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration (see below) for
any proposed structures, and determinations from the CitvlCounty Association of Governments of San Mateo
County as the designated Airport Land Use Commission.
This determination does not negate the requirement for the Proposed Project sponsor to undergo Federal
Aviation Administration review as described in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 for both (1) the
permanent structures and (2) any temporan• cranes or other equipment taller than the permanent buildings
which would be rcqui red to construct those structures.
AIRPORT COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LONDON H. BREED LARRY MAZZOLA ELEANOR JOHNS EVERETT A. HEWLETT. JR. JANE NATOLI MALCOLM YEIING IVAR C. SATERO
MAYOR PRESIDENT PICEPRESAlENr AIRPORtDIRECTOR
Post Office Box 8097 San Francisco, Callfornla 94128 Tel650.821.5000 Fax 650.8215005 www.flysfo.com
Page 11-2 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Dom Sign Envelope ID5873C680-CCC54DOF-AD12-2522A3E5C01A
Stephanie Skangm, City of South San Francisco
February 9, 2022
Page 2 of 2
Due to the proximity of the Proposed Project to the Airport and certain procedures from Runway IOL -28R,
Airspace Protection Policies (AP -1 through AP -4) from the SFU ALUCP is enclosed as reminders of
incompatible site characteristics, especially as it pertains to solar panels building materials/features that
reflect and crcatc bright lights/glare.
The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. We look forward to reviewing the Final
Environmental Impact Report when made public. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (650) 821-6678 or at nupur.sinha(alflysfo.com.
Sincerely,
QacuSipned by,
70957AFRA4CF495
Nupur Sinha
Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs
San Francisco International Airport
P_0. Rox 8697
San Francisco, California 94128
Attachment
cc: Susy Kalkim ALLTC
Audrey Park, SPO Environmental Affairs Manager
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 11-3
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
DocuSign Envelope ID5873C6BC-CCC5-4DOF-AQ12-2522 A3E5C01A
THE CITY'COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MAT EO COUNTY OCTOBER 2012
4.5
and associated with human disease of varying severity.
b. Biosafety Level 3 practices, safety equipment, and facility design and construction are
applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work
is done with indigenous or exotic agents with a potential for respiratory transmission, and
which may cause serious and potentially lethal infection.
c. Biosafety Level 4 practices. safety equipment, and facility design and construction are
applicable for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of
life-threatening disease, which may be transmitted via the aerosol route and for which
there is no available vaccine or therapy.
Airspace Protection
The compatibility of proposed land uses with respect to airspace protection shall be evaluated in accordance with the
policies set forth in this section. These policies are established with a twofold purpose:
i. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the public's exposure to potential safety
hazards that could be created through the construction of tall structures.
2. To protect the public interest in providing for the Orderly development of SFO by ensuring that new
development in the Airport environs avoids compromising the airspace in the Airport vicinity. This avoids the
degradation in the safety, utility, efficiency, and air service capability of the Airport that could be caused by the
attendant need to raise visibility minimums, increase minimum rates of climb, or cancel, restrict. or redesign flight
procedures.
4.5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING TALL STRUCTURES
14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Novigabfe Airspace, governs the
FAA's review of proposed construction exceeding certain height limits, defines airspace obstruction criteria, and
provides for FAA aeronautical studies of proposed construction. Appendix F describes the FAA airspace review
process and the extent of FAA authority related to airspace protection.
4.5.2 PART 77, SUBPART B, NOTIFICATION PROCESS
Federal regulations require any person proposing to build a new structure or alter an existing structure with a height
that would exceed the elevations described in CFR Part 77, Subpart B. Section 77.9, to prepare an FAA Form 7466-I,
Notice of Proposed Construdion or Akeration, and submit the notice to the FAA The regulations apply to buildings and
other structures or portions of structures, such as mechanical equipment, flag poles, and other projections that may
exceed the aforementioned elevations.
[IV -34]
Ce m pre he Helve Alrpcn Land Uee Ce. pa tl bi I ley Plan
for the Environs of Sao Franclxo In trmationel Ah port
Ahportl Land Use C—patlb111tr Pvlieles
Page 11-4 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
DocuSign Envelope ID 5873C6BC-CCC5-4DDF-AD12-2522 A3E5C01A
THE CITVC❑LINTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY OCTOBER 2012
Exhibit IV -10 depicts the approximate elevations at which the 14 CFR Part 77 notification requirements would be
triggered: see Exhibit IV -1 I for a close-up view of the northern haft and Exhibit IV -12 for a close-up view of the
southern half of the area. These exhibits are provided for informational purposes only. Official determinations of the
areas and elevations within which the federal notification requirements apply are subject to the authority of the FAA.
The FAA is empowered to require the filing of notices for proposed construction based on considerations other than
height. For example, in some areas of complex airspace and high air traffic volumes, the FAA may be concerned about
the potential for new construction of any height to interfere with electronic navigation aids. In these areas. the FAA
will want to review all proposed construction projects.
The FAA has developed an on-line tool for project sponsors to use in determining whether they are required to file a
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Sponsors of proposed projects are urged to refer to this website to
determine whether they are required to file Form 7460-1 with the FAA:
https:NoeaaA W govloeaaalexternallgisTooIslgisAction.jsp?action=showN a Not ice Req uiredTooIForm
4.5.3 AIRSPACE MAPPING
Part 77. Subpart C. establishes obstruction standards for the airspace around airports including approach zones, conical
zones, transitions[ zones, and horizontal zones known as "imaginary surfaces." Exhibit IV -13 depicts the Part 77 Civil
Airport Imaginary Surfaces at SFO. The imaginary surfaces rise from the primary surface, which is at ground level
immediately around the runways. The surfaces rise gradually along the approach slopes associated with each runway
end and somewhat more steeply off the sides of the runways. The FAA considers any objects penetrating these
surfaces, whether buildings, trees or vehicles travelling on roads and railroads, as obstructions to air navigation.
Obstructions may occur without compromising safe air navigation, but they must be marked, lighted, and noted on
aeronautical publications to ensure that pilots can see and avoid them.
Close-up views of the north and south sides of the Fart 77 surfaces are provided in Exhibit IV -14 and Exhibit IV -1 i,
respectively. Additionally, Exhibit IV -16 provides an illustration of the outer approach and transitional surfaces
located on the southeast side of the Part 77 surfaces.
Together with its tenant airlines. SFO has undertaken a mapping effort to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces
that protect the airspace required for multiple types of flight procedures such as those typically factored into FAA
aeronautical studies, as shown on Exhibit IV -17 and Exhibit IV -18. These aeronautical surfaces include those
established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.38. U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), and a
surface representing the airspace required for One -Engine Inoperative (OEI) departures from Runway 28L (to the west
through the San Bruno Gap).` The exhibits depict the lowest elevations from the combination of the OEI procedure
surface and all TERPS surfaces. The surfaces are defined with Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC) criteria to ensure
safe separation of aircraft using the procedures from the underlying obstacles. Any proposed structures penetrating
these surfaces are likely to receive Determinations of Hazard {DOH} from the FAA through the 7460-1 aeronautical
study process. These surfaces indicate the maximum height at which structures can be considered compatible with
Airport operations.
Id See Appendix F, Section F.3.2 for a discussion oIane-engine inoperative procedures.
Cemp-1—s We Alrpnrt Land Ue C.m patlh lllty PUrr
fur the Enrlrons of San Francisco In[errrullm 1 Alrpor l
Air p.. 1J Laird Use C.mpaUbiity Pvl lir es [IV -35]
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 11-5
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Cc vig'+Er Dnp 1O A
- - - --a--San•Frandsco.._-._.._ _.--
i ®sk,wan a.•«.l a.�en.ux,l .�aaoM IepAN3 pepna•nbd en pdn wm �q
y� ® EWnNn of I—M. WAMa
c
y i nepnncmm e•imaWo[aurtavaNN efi p.Fme^Fe on Pd+rwm www+weT
raadmadr �, Shane
cmeer
Daly City 1
colma
en ua ane
FLAT
'` .... •`SSE, i "�// �a %' RRe . ren .. aaa. � c a.Pr..
xo•i-alimiir Ik
[
4
�� `�•� 200 1
4 FLAT
2 •i
w I .wz •iev:l Cwvry Aerx i
t..t•oe RarH Sbk Por. I
Montara
2000
FLAT
163
FLAT
Page 11-6 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR
LEaERO
® iW Ew.aon eaanxalaweneMplwbeay.Ne!
AYpw Mapn 9eR LawlµNeLi. Npl[IAmarCae
mcal Aa1um V r9aal�+'O!!i
�aa.glM de cal A.aen.ua�rawea�s.e An.y.
cro.nd L.rH ucy
-.15 •ne kfnel
=W65
MM.' o
rr roa • ssa
u r`A arp naR
a�pa1 iNPertl'
• S•Ri Sgwe
• GILTRAIa15Yggn
Re}viM vvA Ar Peuennn Arca
Raikefe
__ Fmexay
Regie
npaa
may
.,fto Nrawenatnrelask ca.w .
n^9 wpew q -'y wp a Mme xw .a l
mnaamed mop onpl ae' San Frarmacv
I Ar6ort[STO]aia nmivlmmmn amr,n I[
,ur,ef'aad m, roup �[be u,eeaPv�
uce N �+uf-Ta[oe Ie�=ery mmpeliLrery wRe veplee
eNvwKe �ea'.rcrtt�n �n vn errcpw^a�a el ca:a MI An FPA
Fyrn :aE0.+ m,Nftvirp�yeCxnlvcm+a Ayraiwn
oaea wl nn�h �. a=c.racr. urorm.cm.ar mr m>�
vPnm.. wera_roe.,m. pan sFaeon
�neo n �n'r klno e.aea a Impco n nn a � aEr, Rm
e.oee��vwu.earn.e.um.m.re.tclnm ewm.-
e'•'ePow or atHreocAmpynpaaaecAnp waFi P'epa�0aa•
z Tnn map eon m[�epuce lir Faw•a otsaoeeon wolwWn 1
xportanFaa ary ryan;cEinanJ rer.w aeoc•a Pmpeuip
rt ek.ee<ma ne 9r'a ever erc b.rer Nen Vn
w4plvnUxe npwi en Ne e+a0.lal0en nel
rHrw Me conkmeom aporexp[m• oG[W9on a7 a.k an FAn
Fyrm eaa0.r are leiOwarpt mapN aW an prvppaal map
arrapnale b me FM SFd, x w�wn. a ppw aparcw a
InAawa SFO. San MvdoGu.g, me
ewnp ryrem-mn iwern Ur npv n,e•afaearwrn, .gyp
feeA nwdlsapena M ynpen wt ma a ee cmkmn[ wui w
uaeY aerenMnl waYeea Inas en Ihn o�•ecgn!�w• FAA
CEMAA v nayrc b wne.e �.rxvr - mpoc®maN
xbp' p aadarcy a neeNtnra .� SFO
Sat—San F.6 Imnnamnel AnMJ N
Cenautln'r. and PIAIYWy TeEMeapY Ine,1W8
0 oaa ae
E.Pww IV•1I
CRITICAL AF ROMAuTICAL 5[1RFACE9
— NORTHWEST SIDE
Campr¢B— A,rpw Lano Jl Plan
b[ the Ernnronad San FMMn InpamaWalP ,,OM
C1CAG
Ceyleounq' Aacma..n d tv. c3 .—
d Sen dlateo Ccun[y. LaRoma
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
DocuSigR Envelope ID5873C6BC-CCC5-4DDF -AD 12-2522 A3E5C01A
THE CITY'COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY NOVEMBER 2912
Exhibit IV -19, which is provided for information purposes only, depicts a profile view of the lowest critical airspace
surfaces along Ithe extended centerline of Runway 10L -28R — the TER PS Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) surface,
representing standard all -engines departures, and the approximate OEI surface developed by SFO through independent
study in consultation with the airlines serving SFO. The exhibit also shows the terrain elevation beneath the airspace
surfaces and various aircraft approach and departure profiles, based on varying operating assumptions. The exhibit
illustrates a fundamental principle related to the design of airspace protection surfaces. The surfaces are always
designed below the actual aircraft flight profile which they are designed to protect, thus providing a margin of safety.
Note that the ODP climb profile is above the ODP airspace surface. and the OEI climb profile is above the OEI
airspace surface.
4.5.4 AIRSPACE PROTECTION POLICIES
The following airspace protection policies (AP) shall apply to the ALUCP.
AP -1 COMPLIANCE WITH 14 CFR PART 77, SUBPART B, NOTICE OF PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
AP -1.1 Local Government Responsibility to Notify Project Sponsors
Local governments should notify sponsors of proposed projects at the earliest opportunity to file Farm
7460-1. Notice of Proposed Construction or Aherrrtion. with the FAA for any proposed project that would
exceed the FAA notification heights. as shown approximately on Exhibit 1V-10. Linder Federal law. it is
the responsibility of the project sponsor to comply with all notification and other requirements described
in 14 CFR Part 77. This requirement applies Independent of this ALUCP.
AP -1.2 FAA Aeronautical Study Findings Required Before Processing Development
Application
The sponsor of a proposed project that would exceed the FAA Notification heights, as shown
approximately on Exhibit IV -10. shall present to the local government permitting agency with his or her
application for a development perrnit a copy of the findings of the FAA's aeronautical study, or evidence
demonstrating that he or she is exempt from having to file an FAA Form 7460-1. It is the responsibility of
the local agency to consider the FAA determination study findings as part of its review and decision on
the proposed project.
UWY� alp]1:19�Ic�►L��'PI��:E71i1�]1►C�Y�] yam_►_►�:Z�7►L[Ej�C�I_1��1�3�]1 7
Project sponsors shall be required to comply with the findings of FAA aeronautical studies with respect to
any recommended alterations in the building design and height and any recommended marking and lighting
of their structures for the if, proposed projects to be deemed consistent with this ALUCP.
Cnmp-1—s ire Alrpnrt Land Ue Cnm parlh hitt Plan
fur rhe Enrlrurn of San Francisco hd.e r rut I o PmI Air p ori
Air pvrV Land Use C. or patlbiity Pul 1, l er [IV -55]
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 11-7
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Docu&gn Envelope ID 5873C6BC-CCC5-4DDF-AD12-2522A3E5C61A
THE CITY!COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY NOVEMBER 2012
AP -3 MAXIMUM COMPATIBLE BUILDING HEIGHT
In order to be deemed consistent with the ALUCP. the maximum height of a new building must be the
lower of (1) the height shown on the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map (Exhibits IV-17and IV -18), or
(2) the maximum height determined not to be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an aeronautical
study prepared pursuant to the fling of Form 7464-1.
For the vast rnajority of parcels, the height limits established in local zoning ordinances are lower than the
critical airspace surfaces. In those cases, the zoning district height regulations will control. Compliance
with the zoning district height and the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map. however. does not relieve
the construction sponsor of the obligation to fife a FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Constfaction or
Afteration. if required. and to comply with the determinations resulting from the FAA's aeronautical study.
For a project to be consistent with this ALUCP, no local agency development permits shall be issued for
any proposed structure that would penetrate the aeronautical surfaces shown on Exhibits IV-17and 1V-18
or the construction of which has not received a Determination of No Hazard from the FAA or which
would cause the FAA to increase the minimum visibility requirements for any instrument approach Or
departure procedure at the Airport-
APA
irport
APA OTHER FLIGHT HAZARDS ARE INCOMPATIBLE
Proposed land uses with characteristics that may cause visual, electronic, or, wildlife hazards, particularly
bird strike hazards, to aircraft taking off or landing at the Airport or in flight are incompatible in Area S of
the Airport Influence Area. They lnay be permitted only if the uses are consistent with FAA rules and
regulations. Proof of consistency with FAA rules and regulations and with any performance standards
cited below must be provided to the Airport Land Use Commission (CICAG Board) by the sponsor of
the proposed land use action.
Specific characteristics that may create hazards to aircraft in flight and which are incompatible include:
(a) Sources of glare, such as highly reflective buildings or building features, or bright lights. including
search lights or laser displays. which would interfere with the vision of pilots making approaches to
the Airport -
(b) Distracting lights that that could be mistaken by pilots on approach to the Airport for airport
identification lighting, runway edge lighting, runway end identification lighting. Or runway approach
lighting.
(c) Sources of dust. smoke. or water vapor that may impair the vision of pilots ;Waking approaches
to the Airport.
(d) Sources of electrical intelderence with aircraft or air traffic control communications or navigation
equipment, including radar.
(e) Land uses that, as a regular, byproduct of their operations, produce thermal plumes with the
potential to rise high enough and at sufficient velocities to interfere with the control of aircraft in
Ce m pre 1—x We Air peri Lind U- Cnmp ihpity Plan
furthe Environs of San Franalsto InLer rwtlmrni Airport
Air pvrVLand Use compatibility Pu110r5
[IV -59]
Page 11-8 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Docu&gn Envelope ID 5873C6BC-CCC5-4DDF-AD12-2522 A3E5C01A
THE CITY'COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY NOVEMBER 2912
flight. Upward velocities of 4.3 meters (14.1 feet) per second at altitudes above 200 feet above the
ground shall be considered as potentially intetiering with the co11troI of aircraft in flight.
(f) Any use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife. particularly large flocks of birds, that is
inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations, including. but riot limited to, FAA Order 5200.5A Waste
Disposal Sites On or Near Airports, FAA Advisory Circular 15015200-33B. Hazardous Wildlife Attractants
On or Near Airports. and any successor or replacement orders or advisory circulars. Exceptions to
this policy are acceptable for wetlands or other environmental mitigation projects required by
ordinance, statute, court order, or Record of Decision issued by a federal agency under the Nadonal
Environmental Policy Act.
4.5.5 iALP AIRSPACE TOOL
In consultation with CICAG, SFO developed the iALP Airspace Tool. a web -based, interactive tool to evaluate the
relationship of proposed buildings with the Airports critical airspace surfaces. The iALP Airspace Tool is designed to
assist planners, developers, and other interested persons with the implementation of the airspace protection policies of
the SFO ALUCP. The tool helps users determine: (1) the maximum allowable building height at a given site, and/or (2)
whether a bui€ding penetrates a critical airspace surface, and by how much, given the proposed building height.
A more detailed description of the iALP Airspace Tool and a tutorial explaining how to use it is presented in
Appendix J. Use of this tool, however, does not relieve a project sponsor of the duty to comply with all federal
regulations, including the obligation to file Form 7460-€, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA
17 This is n thr-h.ld-tablhhcd by the California Energy Commission in its review of po Plat Ii.—Ing applications. S.. avLhe Solar Power project
Supplemental StaffAssessmeut Part 2,. CEC-700-2010-004-REV 1-5UP-PT2, July 2010. California Energy Commission. Docket Number 09 -AFC -6, p.
25. This criterion is based on guidance established by the Australian Government Civil Aviation Authority [Advisory 0rcular AC 134-05(0), June
2004]. The FAA's Airport Obs u•uctions Standards Committee [AOSC] is studying this matter but has not yet issued specific guidance.
[IV -60]
C—prehenelve Alrp.n Land Use Cnrnp�rrblrlrp Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco In c—tional Ah port
At. per rl Land Use C—patibilttr Pvlieiem
101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR Page 11-9
Chapter 11: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Response to Letter A: San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
This letter confirms and clarifies the regulations specific to this site in regards to its proximity to the San
Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Draft EIR (page 4-15) recognizes that the project site is entirely
within the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Compatibility Area B. As such, the
compatibility criteria specific to noise, safety, and airspace protection as contained within the ALUCP are
applicable to the project, and the Airport Land Use Committee will exercise its statutory duties to review
the project. An assessment of the project's consistency with ALUCP compatibility criteria specific to
safety and airspace protection is provided in the Draft EIR (page 4-15), and identified no inconsistencies.
Criteria specific to noise is assessed in the Initial Study (Draft EIR Appendix B page 40), also identifying
no inconsistency.
This letter does not provide specific comment on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR and no
revisions are required.
Page 11-10 101 Gull Drive Project Final EIR