HomeMy WebLinkAbout101 Terminal Environmental ChecklistENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
INFINITE 101 PROJECT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
LEAD AGENCY: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California, 94080 Contact: Billy Gross (650) 877-8535 billy.gross@ssf.net
September 2023
ICF. 2023. Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist. September. (ICF 104667.0.001.01) San Francisco. Prepared for City of South San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist i September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Previously Certified EIR ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 CEQA Review of the Project ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Scope and Content of the Checklist ....................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Incorporation by Reference ................................................................................................... 1-4
1.6 Checklist Organization ............................................................................................................ 1-4
Chapter 2 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Location and Physical Setting ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Site Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts .............................................. 2-2
2.3.2 Lindenville Planning Sub-Area ......................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Project Components ............................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4.1 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ............................................................................... 2-4
2.4.2 Lighting ............................................................................................................................. 2-5
2.4.3 Building Design and Sustainability Features .................................................................... 2-5
2.4.4 Landscaping and Heritage Trees .................................................................................... 2-6
2.4.5 Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.5 Project Construction ............................................................................................................... 2-8
2.6 Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................ 2-9
Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.2 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3-8
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 3-11
3.3.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.3.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-16
3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 3-17
3.4.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-18
3.4.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-25
City of South San Francisco
Contents
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist ii September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 3-26
3.5.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-26
3.5.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-31
3.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 3-32
3.6.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-32
3.6.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-35
3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 3-36
3.7.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-37
3.7.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-43
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 3-44
3.8.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-44
3.8.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-46
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 3-47
3.9.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-48
3.9.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-55
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 3-56
3.10.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-57
3.10.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-62
3.11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 3-63
3.11.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-63
3.11.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-66
3.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 3-67
3.12.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-67
3.12.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-68
3.13 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................................................. 3-69
3.13.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-69
3.13.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-75
3.14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 3-76
3.14.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-76
3.14.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-78
3.15 Public Services ...................................................................................................................... 3-79
3.15.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-79
3.15.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-82
3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 3-83
3.16.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-83
3.16.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-84
City of South San Francisco
Contents
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist iii September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.17 Transportation and Circulation ............................................................................................ 3-85
3.17.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-85
3.17.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-91
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-92
3.18.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-92
3.18.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 3-95
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................ 3-96
3.19.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-96
3.19.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 3-102
3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 3-103
3.20.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 3-103
3.20.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 3-105
Chapter 4 Report Preparation ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Consulting Team ..................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 ICF .................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 Fehr & Peers ..................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Project Sponsor Team ............................................................................................................ 4-2
4.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted .................................................................................... 4-2
Appendices
A Air Quality Technical and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report
B Biological Species Database Searches
C Arborist Report
D Bird Safe Design Strategy
E Built-Environment Resources Study
F TDM Plan
G Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation
H Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
I Noise Technical Report
J Transportation Impact Assessment
K Tribal Outreach Materials
L Water Supply Assessment
City of South San Francisco
Contents
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist iv September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Tables
2-1 Summary of Proposed Land Uses .............................................................................................. 2-3
2-2 Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project .................................................... 2-10
3.17-1 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................ 3-87
3.17-2 Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee ...................................................... 3-88
Figures
follows page
2-1 Project Location Map ................................................................................................................. 2-2
2-2 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................ 2-2
2-3 Existing Zoning Designation ....................................................................................................... 2-2
2-4 Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 2-4
2-5 Rendering from U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway)........................................................................... 2-6
3.1-1 U.S. 101 Northbound Facing Northwest .................................................................................... 3-4
3.1-2 U.S. 101 Southbound Facing Southwest .................................................................................... 3-4
3.1-3 Shaw Road Facing North ............................................................................................................ 3-4
City of South San Francisco
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist v September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ACCM Asbestos-Containing Construction Materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
APN assessor’s parcel number
ATCM Airborne Toxics Control Measure
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay San Francisco Bay
Bay Trail San Francisco Bay Trail
BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BD+C Building Design and Construction
bgs below ground surface
BMPs best management practices
BTP-H Business Technology Park High
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments
Cal Water California Water Service Company
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Clean Air Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CHP California Highway Patrol
City City of South San Francisco
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CREC controlled recognized environmental condition
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
cy cubic yard
dB decibels
City of South San Francisco
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist vi September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
dBA A-weighted decibels
DMA Drainage Management Area
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
FAR floor area ratio
Farmland Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
General Plan Shape SSF 2040 General Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
gsf gross square feet
HASP health and safety plan
HBW home-based work
HREC historical recognized environmental condition
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
in/sec inch per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
LBP lead-based paint
Ldn day-night average sound level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
LID low-impact development
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MM mitigation measure
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOP notice of preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
City of South San Francisco
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist vii September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPV peak particle velocity
PV photovoltaic
R&D research and development
REC recognized environmental condition
ROG reactive organic gas
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SFO San Francisco International Airport
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMCEHS San Mateo County Environmental Health Services
SMP Site Management Plan
SOM Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSF South San Francisco
SSFFD South San Francisco Fire Department
SSFUSD South San Francisco Unified School District
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAZ transportation analysis zone
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA transportation impact analysis
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST underground storage tank
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WQCP water quality control plant
XRF X-ray fluorescence
Infinite101 Project
Environmental Checklist 1-1 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background The approximately 8.69-acre project site is currently developed with a small vehicle maintenance garage and a pay booth, totaling approximately 6,000 gross square feet (gsf). The pay booth and maintenance garage were constructed by 1974 and 1984, respectively. In addition, the project site includes an approximately 1,274-stall surface parking lot. Under project implementation, all existing uses would be demolished and 696,343 sf of research-and-development (R&D) uses and amenities within two six-story buildings (known as I101N and I101S) would be constructed, along with a seven-story parking garage and additional surface parking. Landscaping would also be provided. The project site, identified as assessor’s parcel number (APN) 015-113-240, is bounded by Terminal Court to the north, U.S. 101 (known as Bayshore Freeway) to the east, a navigable slough1 to the south, and existing commercial and industrial development to the west. Surrounding land uses include industrial, commercial, and mixed uses. The project site is approximately 1 mile west of San Francisco Bay and 0.20 mile west of a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail that runs along San Bruno Canal. In addition, the project site is approximately 1 mile northwest of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Site access is provided via Terminal Court from Produce Avenue.
1.2 Previously Certified EIR In October 2022, the City of South San Francisco (City) adopted the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan, which updated the City’s prior general plan and outlined the City’s visions for the South San Francisco community over the next two decades. The Shape SSF 2040 General Plan anticipates approximately 14,312 net new housing units and approximately 42,297 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The City prepared a program environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 that evaluates the potential impacts on the environment that could result from implementation of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan, related zoning code amendments, and the City’s Climate Action Plan (General Plan EIR).2 The General Plan EIR was certified by the South San Francisco City Council on October 12, 2022.
1.3 CEQA Review of the Project Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 mandates that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, a community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant 1 The navigable slough is a remnant tidal channel that cuts through a commercial district in South San Francisco and connects to San Francisco Bay. (ESA. 2019. Navigable Slough Flood Management Study, Prepared for County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and City of San Bruno. Available: https://oneshoreline.org/ wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Navigable-Slough-Flood-Management-Study.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2023). 2 Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 1-2 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
effects that are peculiar to a project or its site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 specifies that in approving a project that meets the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those that the agency determines in an environmental checklist or other analysis:
• Are peculiar to a project or a parcel on which a project would be located;
• Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which a project is consistent;
• Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action; or
• Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. If an impact is not peculiar to a parcel or project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c) states that an additional EIR need not be prepared for a project solely on the basis of that impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(j) requires that the environmental document still analyze potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR; however, if a significant off-site or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then the analysis may exclude further analysis of that off-site or cumulative impact. The proposed project is consistent with the underlying Business Technology Park High (BTP-H) general plan land use designation and zoning. Therefore, the project qualifies for streamlined environmental review under the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
1.4 Scope and Content of the Checklist This checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the project. Following the format of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, environmental effects are evaluated to determine if the project would result in a potentially significant impact triggering additional review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The checklist evaluates the potential impacts of the project on the following areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 1-3 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Circulation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire The column titles of the checklist have been modified from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G to help answer the questions to be addressed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The checklist columns are:
• Where in the General Plan EIR Is This Topic Discussed? This column indicates where the topic is analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
• Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site? Pursuant to Section 15183 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the proposed project would result in a peculiar impact concerning the proposed development or the project site.
• Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the General Plan EIR? Pursuant to Section 15183(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether substantial changes (i.e., changes in the circumstances under which the proposed project would be undertaken) have occurred since preparation of the General Plan EIR that would result in the project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental analysis.
• Any Significant Off-Site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed? Pursuant to Section 15183 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the proposed project would result in any significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not previously analyzed or disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
• Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information? Pursuant to Section 15183(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the project would increase the severity of an impact identified as significant in the General Plan EIR.
• Do the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve
Impacts? This column indicates if any of the mitigation measures or development policies and standards identified in the General Plan EIR apply to the proposed project, and if they would mitigate the significant impacts of the project, if significant impacts were identified. A “no” answer in any column does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category but, rather, that no new information of substantial importance was identified in comparison to the General Plan EIR analysis.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 1-4 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
1.5 Incorporation by Reference CEQA allows incorporation of other public documents by reference. This checklist incorporates by reference information or analysis from the Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update,
Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County,
California, State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064, certified by the South San Francisco City Council on October 12, 2022. As required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, where information from the General Plan EIR is incorporated into this checklist, the incorporated information is briefly summarized or described. Copies of the General Plan EIR are available to the public at the following locations: Planning Division City Clerk 315 Maple Avenue 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Electronic copies are available at: https://shapessf.com/.
1.6 Checklist Organization This checklist is organized in chapters and appendices, as described below.
• Chapter 1, Introduction, includes a brief overview of the project and the scope, content, and organization of the checklist.
• Chapter 2, Project Description, includes a comprehensive description of the project.
• Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist, includes an evaluation of the resource topics outlined in Section 1.4, Scope and Content of the Checklist. Each resource-specific section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan EIR and presents the potential impacts of the project relative to the impacts of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan EIR.
• Chapter 4, Report Preparation, includes a list of staff members who contributed to preparation of the checklist.
• Appendices A Air Quality Technical and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report Infinite 101 Project B Biological Species Database Searches C Arborist Report D Bird Safe Design Strategy E Built-Environment Resources Study for the Infinite 101 Project F TDM Plan G Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California H Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments I Noise Technical Report Infinite 101 Project J Infinite 101 Transportation Impact Assessment K Tribal Outreach Materials L Water Supply Assessment
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-1 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
Chapter 2 Project Description
2.1 Project Overview US Terminal Court Owner, LLC (project sponsor), is proposing the Infinite101 Project (proposed project), which includes demolition of a small vehicle maintenance garage and pay booth, totaling approximately 6,000 gross square feet (gsf), along with a 1,274-stall surface parking lot. Under existing zoning, the proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct approximately 696,343 gsf of research-and-development (R&D) uses and amenities within two six-story buildings (known as I101N and I101S), along with a seven-story parking garage and additional surface parking. Landscaping would also be provided.
2.2 Project Location and Physical Setting The approximately 8.69-acre project site comprises one parcel at 101 Terminal Court in the City of South San Francisco (Figure 2-1). The project site, identified as assessor’s parcel number (APN) 015-113-240, is bounded by Terminal Court to the north, U.S. 101 (known as Bayshore Freeway) to the east, a navigable slough1 to the south, and existing commercial and industrial development to the west. The southern part of the project site also includes a portion of the shoreline band jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) adjacent to the navigable slough. Surrounding land uses include industrial, commercial, and mixed uses. Specifically, a large Park N’ Fly surface parking lot is north of the project site, Bayshore Freeway is adjacent to the eastern portion of the project site, a navigable slough that feeds into San Bruno Canal is south of the project site, and the Golden Gate Produce Terminal is west of the project site. The project site is approximately 1 mile west of San Francisco Bay and 0.20 mile west of a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail that runs along San Bruno Canal. In addition, the project site is approximately 1 mile northwest of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Access to the project site is provided via Terminal Court from Produce Avenue. The topography of the project site is relatively flat, with an overall slope ranging from 0 to 2 percent. Existing on-site landscaping is limited and includes trees and shrubs. There are 16 trees on the project site. Of these trees, five are classified as protected trees under the City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) Tree
Preservation Ordinance (see City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30). The project site is currently developed with a small vehicle maintenance garage and pay booth, totaling approximately 6,000 gsf. The pay booth and maintenance garage were constructed by 1974 and 1984, respectively. In addition, the project site includes an approximately 1,274-stall surface parking lot. 1 The navigable slough is a remnant tidal channel that cuts through a commercial district in South San Francisco and is connected to San Francisco Bay. (ESA. 2019. Navigable Slough Flood Management Study, Prepared for
County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and City of San Bruno. Available: https://oneshoreline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Navigable-Slough-Flood-Management-Study.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2023).
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-2 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
2.3 Existing Site Conditions
2.3.1 General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts The project site is identified in the City’s Zoning Code and in the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan (General Plan), adopted in October 2022, as Business Technology Park High (BTP-H). The BTP-H land use designation allows for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan describes the permitted uses for the site as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. As established in the City Zoning Code, under the BTP-H zoning designation, the maximum surface area covered by structures (i.e., lot coverage) is limited to 60 percent, with a minimum of 15 percent of the site made up of landscaping. The base maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) under the BTP-H zoning designation is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 2.0, for uses such as R&D facilities or development meeting specific Transportation Demand Management (TDM), off-site improvement, or design standards. In addition, the zoning ordinance provides specific exceptions to FAR limitations for projects based on a Community Benefits Program (see City Municipal Code Chapter 20.395). Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 illustrate the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding area.
2.3.2 Lindenville Planning Sub-Area South San Francisco is organized into several geographic areas, referred to as planning areas, including the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, as identified in the General Plan. The project site is located in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area is an approximately 400-acre area in the central southern portion of South San Francisco between U.S. 101 and South Spruce Avenue, adjacent to the Downtown Sub-Area. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area comprises largely industrial, business, food processing, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. The General Plan’s Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. According to the General Plan, the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area aims to preserve small businesses and industrial uses while strengthening its economic base, which includes a large number of small businesses and a high share of area jobs, by retaining a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses.2
2 City of South San Francisco. 2022. 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2022/11/SSFGPU_PDFPlan_FinalPlan_Resolution_11082022.pdf. Accessed: February 13, 2023.
Figure 2-1
Project Location Map\\PDCCITRDSGIS01\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\104667_Terminal_101\Figures\Land_Use.aprx; User: 58303; Date: 5/5/2023South San FranciscoSan Bruno0 500250
Feet
Project Site
City Limits
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000 Source: ESRI
Figure 2-2
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations\\PDCCITRDSGIS01\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\104667_Terminal_101\Figures\Land_Use.aprx; User: 58303; Date: 5/5/20230 500250
Feet
Project Site
Land Use
Creek
East of 101 Mixed Use
Business and Professional Office
Business Technology Park High
Community Commercial
High Density Mixed Use
Mixed Industrial
Mixed Industrial High
Industrial Transition Zone
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
Transportation
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000 Sources: City of South San Francisco 2022, ESRI
Figure 2-3
Existing Zoning Designation\\PDCCITRDSGIS01\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\104667_Terminal_101\Figures\Land_Use.aprx; User: 58303; Date: 5/5/2023Project Site
Zone
Business Technology Park-High
Business and Professional Office
Community Commercial
Mixed Industrial High
Mixed Industrial Medium
Open Space
Parks and Recreation
T4 Maker
T6 Urban Core
T5 Corridor
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000
0 500250
Feet
Sources: City of South San Francisco 2022, ESRI
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-3 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
It should be noted that the City is currently in the process of preparing the Lindenville Specific Plan, which will establish a new planning framework for the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. The policies and standards established for the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area in the General Plan will remain active until completion and adoption of the new specific plan, which is anticipated to occur sometime during the summer or fall of 2023.3
2.4 Project Components The project proposes demolition of all existing on-site uses (i.e., a small vehicle maintenance garage, pay booth, surface parking spaces) and the construction of R&D uses and an on-site amenity space. Overall, the proposed project would construct approximately 696,343 gsf of new uses across two buildings (I101N and I101S) and generate approximately 1,548 employees during project operation.4 As detailed in Table 2-1, this breaks down as 669,014 gsf of R&D uses and 27,329 gsf of amenity uses. In addition, the proposed project would include an approximately 339,354 gsf, seven-story, or approximately 89-foot-tall, parking garage south of the I101S building. The buildings would be tied together through landscaping and open space to create a sustainable campus environment with improved pedestrian and bicyclist circulation and access, as depicted in Figure 2-4. Building heights would range from six to seven stories, with the maximum building height being 113 feet 6 inches to the top of the rooftop appurtenances.
Table 2-1. Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Building R&D (gsf) Conference (gsf) Gym (gsf) Restaurant/ Coffee Shop (gsf) Total (gsf) Maximum Heighta
I101N 328,771 9,055 0 7,316 345,142 6 stories (113 feet 6 inches)
I101S 340,243 0 10,958 0 351,201 6 stories (113 feet 6 inches)
Total 669,014 9055 10958 7316 696,343 113 feet 6 inches Notes: a. The building height is measured to the top of rooftop appurtenances. The I101N building would have an area of approximately 345,142 gsf and be six stories high (i.e., approximately 114 feet). The building would include approximately 328,771 gsf of R&D uses that would be spread out across all levels of the building. The ground floor of the I101N building would include a lobby and approximately 9,055 gsf of conference space and 7,316 gsf of restaurant and coffee shop space. Outdoor terraces would be incorporated on multiple levels of the proposed building for use by building tenants. Similarly, the I101S building would be south of and immediately adjacent to the I101N building and have an area of approximately 351,201 gsf. It would 3 City of South San Francisco. 2022. Lindenville Specific Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/plan-lindenville/. Accessed: February 13, 2023. 4 696,343 square feet/one employee per 450 square feet = 1,548 employees
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-4 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
also be six stories high, or approximately 114 feet. The building would include approximately 340,243 gsf of R&D uses across all building levels, in addition to the lobby. A 10,958 gsf of gym would be included on the ground floor of the I101S building as well. The I101S building would also incorporate outdoor terraces on multiple levels for use by building tenants. In addition, there would be three emergency generators with Tier 2 engines on the project site. The generators would be located on the ground floor in separate generator rooms within the I101N and I101S buildings. As stated previously, the buildings would be linked together through a cohesive network of landscaping and open space. A center landscaped courtyard would be located along the interior of the project site and framed by the shape of the proposed buildings to prioritize pedestrian- and bike-friendly connections as well as outdoor amenities. The central courtyard would cover approximately 38,000 square feet, be accessible to the public, and provide space for outdoor work, recreation, and socializing through its use of seat walls, paved areas, turf, and shade structures.
2.4.1 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking As depicted in Figure 2-4, vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a driveway on Terminal Court and a right-of-way connection from the southwestern portion of the project site to Shaw Road to the south through an existing access easement. Internal roads would be configured in a loop pattern, providing access to buildings, parking, and on-site amenities. The proposed project would provide a total of 1,300 parking spaces, consisting of approximately 169 surface parking spaces located in the northern portion of the project site, north of the parking garage, as well as 1,131 parking spaces in the seven-story parking garage located behind the I101S building. Approximately five surface parking spaces and 17 garage parking spaces would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compatible. In addition, per California Green Building Standards Code, approximately 20 percent of the total number of parking spaces (i.e., approximately 242 spaces) would be electric-vehicle (EV) capable to accommodate future installation of EV chargers. Of those approximately 242 spaces, 25 percent (or approximately 61 spaces) would be provided with EV charging stations. Street improvements along Terminal Court and the right-of-way connection to Shaw Road would include new curbs, landscaping, and sidewalks. Through project improvement measures, the proposed project would incorporate a new traffic signal and lane reconfiguration at the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp/Produce Avenue intersection, and a new traffic signal and high visibility pedestrian crosswalk at the U.S. 101 southbound on-ramp/Terminal Court/Produce Avenue intersection to improve multimodal circulation surrounding the project site. The proposed project would also include pedestrian pathways along the exterior and interior of the project site. A total of 122 bicycle parking spaces would be provided throughout the site. Specifically, 61 long-term bicycle parking spaces would be provided on the ground floor of each building, with shower and locker facilities for use by building tenants, and 61 short-term bicycle parking spaces would be provided in the outdoor landscaped areas. Dedicated access to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided via Terminal Court and the Shaw Road connection. The proposed project would allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings through the proposed roadway network within the project site. The project site would include 20- to 26-foot-wide fire lanes around the perimeter of the project site, providing access to each building. Most fire lanes would be within a 200-foot hose-pull distance of all first-floor exterior
Source: SOM LLP, 2023.Graphics … 104667 (05-01-2023) JCFigure 2-4
Conceptual Site Plan
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-5 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
walls, unless alternate compliance is authorized by the local fire jurisdiction. Furthermore, the
Active South City Plan, General Plan, and Lindenville Specific Plan, identify a Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail crossing of U.S.-101 to connect the Bay Trail with Shaw Road, with an eventual extension to the Centennial Way Trail via a grade separated crossing of Caltrain. The proposed project would allocate an approximately 5-foot easement for a bicycle and pedestrian path along the navigable slough and Shaw Road driveway on the southern portion of the project site between Shaw Road and U.S. 101. Although no bicycle and pedestrian pathway is proposed here as part of the project, the easement would not preclude completion of the path, as well as the bicycle and pedestrian bridge across U.S. 101, consistent with General Plan Policy MOB-2.1.3 and as identified in the Active South City Plan. Such pedestrian and bicyclist improvements, if pursued, would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the future. However, these improvements are not evaluated as part of the proposed project.
2.4.2 Lighting Lighting would include linear LED channel-type wall-mounted units on the exterior of the buildings and at building entrances. Exterior pole-mounted fixtures would be provided in open space areas, vehicular circulation areas, and other hardscaped areas. In addition, low-level pedestrian lighting would be provided along pedestrian pathways. All exterior lighting would conform to the City Zoning Code, Section 20.300.009, Lighting and Illumination.
2.4.3 Building Design and Sustainability Features As stated previously, the proposed project would be designed so that the buildings would be tied together through landscaping and open space. Specifically, the project would incorporate a center courtyard located along the interior of the project site and framed by the shape of the proposed buildings to prioritize pedestrian- and bike-friendly connections and the available outdoor amenities. In addition, the proposed amenities, including the public gym, coffee shop, restaurant, conference rooms, and lobbies, on the ground-floor level of each of the R&D buildings would be accessible from a network of interconnected pathways as well as through the center courtyard. As depicted in Figure 2-5, the proposed buildings would have primarily glass façades, thereby bringing an abundance of natural light into each building. Building exteriors would also incorporate combinations of unitized curtain walls, glass storefronts and aluminum panels to evoke a modern aesthetic. The I101N and I101S buildings would have metal panel parapets to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. The proposed project would incorporate sustainability features to reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. The proposed project would achieve a minimum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4.1 Building Design and Construction (BD+C) Core and Shell Gold rating as well as WELL v2 Core Gold certification.5 5 The WELL Building Standards are performance-based building standards for measuring and monitoring features within the built environment that may affect human health through air, water, light, and other concepts. The standards provide ways for buildings to be designed to improve human comfort and enhance health and wellness within the built environment.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-6 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
Proposed sustainability measures include an all-electric building design; on-site renewable energy in the form of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels; a high-performance building envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems; ultra-efficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures; low-water demand native and/or adapted vegetation with efficient irrigation systems; on-site recycling and composting facilities; and EV charging infrastructure. Proposed design elements, such as pedestrian circulation improvements, bicycle parking, and TDM measures, would encourage alternative forms of transportation. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and the California Green
Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as CALGreen. For construction and demolition, 100 percent of all inert solids (i.e., building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (i.e., all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project would also be designed to conserve resources and protect water quality through the management of stormwater runoff using low-impact development (LID) methods, where feasible. This approach implements engineered controls to allow stormwater filtering, storage, and flood control. Bioretention basins, flow-through planters, Silva Cell units, and other site design features to manage stormwater runoff flows and reduce stormwater pollution would be located throughout the project site.
2.4.4 Landscaping and Heritage Trees The proposed project would include a landscape plan to compensate for the removal of trees and vegetation and enhance the overall development. The landscape plan would include planting trees on-site to replace the trees removed during construction, in accordance with the City Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 13.30). Landscaped areas would include a mixture of native and adapted vegetation with a low water demand. As discussed above, there are 16 trees on the project site, including five protected trees. All of the on-site trees would be removed prior to project construction. Upon project buildout, 225 trees would be provided within the central courtyard, surface parking lot, and terrace areas and along the western and southern perimeters of the project site. The proposed trees and all other landscaping would be planted in compliance with City regulations.
2.4.5 Utilities 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. Any expansion or increase in the capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. Detailed descriptions of the proposed utility infrastructure are provided below.
Source: SOM LLP, 2023.Graphics … 104667 (04-28-2023) JCFigure 2-5
Rendering from U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway)
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-7 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
2.4.5.1 Water Supply South San Francisco is served by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Specifically, South San Francisco is in the service area of Cal Water’s South San Francisco (SSF) District, which includes South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and Broadmoor. The Cal Water SSF District utilizes both the groundwater supply from the Westside Basin and imported surface water supply purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). On-site water system improvements would include the pipes, valves, private fire hydrants, meters and submeters, and backflow preventers needed to serve the proposed uses. The proposed project would include the installation of a 4-inch domestic water main on the project site, which would connect to existing 12-inch water main in Terminal Court. The proposed project would also install a 10-inch water main on-site to meet all on-site fire water needs. In addition, because the proposed project would be served by Cal Water, the project sponsor would be required to pay a special facilities fee to offset the net increase in water demand generated by the project, in accordance with Cal Water’s Development Offset Program (the Water-Neutral Development Policy referenced in the General Plan EIR).
2.4.5.2 Wastewater The City owns and maintains the sanitary sewer system and infrastructure within public rights-of-way. The collected wastewater is conveyed to the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) adjacent to San Francisco Bay on Colma Creek. Proposed sewer system improvements would include upgrading an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main that runs underneath the navigable slough south of the project site to a 12-inch main to support the proposed project. Proposed on-site sewer pipes would be between 6 and 10 inches in diameter and connect to the upsized sewer main beneath the navigable slough.
2.4.5.3 Stormwater The City owns and maintains the storm drainage infrastructure within public rights-of-way. These facilities discharge to San Mateo County flood control facilities. On-site storm drain improvements would include the installation of bioretention ponds, flow-through planters, and Silva Cell units to provide LID treatment on the project site. The proposed stormwater pipes would be between 6 and 24 inches in diameter. New connections would be made to an existing 15-inch storm drain main in Terminal Court.
2.4.5.4 Dry Utilities Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides both electricity and natural gas services in South San Francisco. As a California Public Utilities Commission–regulated public utility in the state of California, PG&E owns, operates, and maintains above- and belowground electric and natural gas facilities in South San Francisco, including substations. South San Francisco is also served by both wired and wireless telecommunications from numerous providers, including AT&T, Comcast, Viasat, and T-Mobile.6 The project proposes the installation of new connections for dry utility service. All electrical and 6 BroadBandNow. 2022. Business Internet Providers in South San Francisco, California. Available: https://broadbandnow.com/business/California/South-San-Francisco. Accessed: February 10, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-8 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
telecommunication utilities would be connected to existing electrical and telecommunication utilities. The proposed project would not include any new connections for natural gas, which would not be used by the project.
2.4.5.5 Solid Waste The South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer provide solid waste disposal services citywide, including garbage and recycling services.7 The South San Francisco Scavenger Company transports all solid waste to the Blue Line Transfer facility at 500 East Jamie Court where solid waste is processed, treated, and transported to other disposal facilities. The Blue Line Transfer facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day.8 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. The project site would continue to be served by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer. State law requires the collection of trash in three separate streams: waste, mixed recycling, and compost, in accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 341, AB
1826, and Senate Bill (SB) 1383. The City requires further separation of mixed recycling into paper, containers, and cardboard. The project design would incorporate two central trash rooms for trash produced during operation. Waste would be compacted with use of a compactor with a 10-yard roll-off in the I101N building and a 15-yard roll-off in the I101S building. The paper recycling stream would be compacted with use of a compactor with a 10-yard roll-off in both buildings. Recycled container-type material would be disposed of in 4-cubic-yard (cy) front-load bins. Compost would be disposed of in 2 cy front-load bins. Cardboard would be deposited into a baler.
2.5 Project Construction The proposed project would be constructed in eight phases, including demolition of the surface parking lot, pay booth, and small vehicle maintenance garage. Upon receipt of the building permit, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to take approximately 33 months. The phases of construction would include (1) rough grading and site demolition, (2) deep foundation installation, (3) foundation installation, (4) superstructure construction, (5) building enclosure construction, (6) interior buildout, (7) sitework, and (8) final building inspections. Demolition and grading would generate approximately 6,700 cy of material, including removed fencing, trees, concrete, soil, and asphalt. In addition, during demolition and grading, approximately 22,299 cy of soil would be imported for site preparation. The proposed project would excavate to a depth of approximately 3 to 7 feet below the ground surface for utility work. The average level of the project site is 10 feet above sea level. The maximum depth of excavation would be 5 feet below sea level for the sanitary sewer main upgrade. The main crosses 7 South San Francisco Scavenger Company. n.d. About Us. Available: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/. Accessed: February 10, 2022. 8 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2023. Blue Line MRF and TS. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1598?siteID=3259. Accessed: February 10, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-9 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
underneath the navigable slough and continues to the nearby sanitary sewer pump station. The preferred method of construction for the sanitary sewer main would involve pipe bursting along the existing main. That way, excavation would be necessary only at the boring pits at the ends of the pipe installation area. The haul route for demolition materials would be U.S. 101, with trucks traveling from the project site either northbound or southbound. Trucks using the northbound haul route would exit the project site, travel from Produce Avenue to Mitchell Avenue, then continue to South Airport Boulevard and the on-ramp located off the boulevard. Trucks using the southbound haul route would exit the project site, then make a right turn from Terminal Court to the Produce Avenue on-ramp. The haul route for deliveries or trucks returning to the project site would be in the opposite direction. The hours of construction would be stipulated by the City Building Division. The project contractor would be required to comply with Section 8.32.050 of the City Municipal Code (i.e., the City Noise Ordinance), which includes regulations related to noise generated by construction. Project construction would typically occur Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., although some work is anticipated to occur on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. or on Sundays between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Approximately 172 instances of nighttime or early-morning construction work may occur (e.g., drilling work, steel erection, concrete pouring). Drilling and steel erection, with use of a crane, may begin as early as 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The drilling and crane work would take place during these early morning hours over an estimated 40 days and 105 days, respectively. Concrete pouring may occur during nighttime or early-morning hours, with approximately 5 nights of concrete pours potentially starting between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. and an additional 22 nights between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Construction is not anticipated to occur on legal holidays. Project construction would use, on average, approximately 1,303,405 gallons (or 4 acre-feet) of water per year over the approximately 3-year construction period. Dewatering may be required during project construction, depending on the weather at the time of construction. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be implemented during project construction.
2.6 Required Permits and Approvals Implementation of the proposed project would require certain entitlements and approvals from the City and other agencies. Table 2-2 lists the entitlements and approvals required for the proposed project, which would be subject to review and approval by the City and other agencies.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2 Project Description
Infinite 101 Project Environmental Checklist 2-10 September 2023 ICF 104667.0.001.01
Table 2-2. Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project
Agency Permit/Review Required City of South San Francisco Planning Commission:
● Design Review
● TDM Plan Approval
● Engineering Division:
● Grading Permit(s)
● Encroachment Permit(s)
● Site Plan Check
● Hauling Permit(s) Building Division:
● Building Permit(s)
● Certificate of Occupancy Parks and Recreation Department:
● Protected Tree Removal Permit Other:
● Fire Code Compliance California Regional Water Quality Control Board Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Bay Area Air Quality Management District Stationary-Source Permit (Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate) for Generators or Similar Equipment City/County Association of Governments, Airport Land Use Commission Determination of Consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Construction and Alteration and Federal Aviation Administration Determination per Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Part 77.9 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit for Work in the Shoreline Band Pursuant to McAteer-Petris Act Government Code Sections 66610
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-1 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist
3.1 Aesthetics
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR
Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
1. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact AES-1, pp. 3.1-12 to 3.1-14 No No No No Yes
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway?
Impact AES-2, pp. 3.1-14 to 3.1-16 No No No No Yes
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact AES-3, pp. 3.1-16 and 3.1-17 No No No No Yes
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Impact AES-4, pp. 3.1-17 to 3.1-19 No No No No Yes
3.1.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to aesthetics has occurred since certification of the Shape SSF General Plan (General Plan) Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as described in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Light, and Glare, of the General Plan EIR. The below description of the existing visual setting is provided for the project site. The project site is located on the west side of the U.S. 101 corridor, within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. Surrounding land uses include industrial, commercial, and mixed uses, with a high concentration of large office and research-and-development (R&D) facilities that were built after 2000. Immediately adjacent to the project site is a large Park n’ Fly surface parking lot to the north, U.S. 101 to the east, a navigable slough that feeds into San Bruno Canal to the south, and the Golden Gate Produce Terminal to the west. The project site is approximately 1 mile west of San Francisco Bay (Bay) and 0.20 mile west of a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) that runs along San Bruno Canal.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-2 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
The approximately 8.69-acre project site is on a flat, urbanized parcel. It is currently developed with a small vehicle maintenance garage and a pay booth, totaling approximately 6,000 gross square feet (gsf). In addition, the project site includes an approximately 1,274-stall surface parking lot. Existing on-site landscaping is limited to ruderal vegetation, shrubs, and 16 trees. Of these trees, five are classified as protected trees under the City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) Tree Preservation
Ordinance (see City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30).
3.1.1.1 Scenic Vistas The analysis of impacts on scenic vistas is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AES-1 (pages 3.1-12 through 3.1-14). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan could alter existing views of scenic vistas, mandatory compliance with design review regulations and policies in the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan would ensure that the potential impacts from new development would be less than significant. The General Plan identifies the Bay, San Bruno Mountain, and Colma Creek as important natural features. The General Plan (Policy LU-8.8) calls for the protection of unique public views of the city, the Bay, and local landmarks from major thoroughfares and hillside open spaces. As such, the City strives to protect views of the South San Francisco hillside sign, which is a prominent visual feature and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, the City strives to protect views of hillside open spaces, including Sign Hill, San Bruno Mountain, and the Coast Range (west of the planning area). The below analysis includes the project-specific impacts on scenic vistas. In the vicinity of the project site, views of the South San Francisco hillside sign, Sign Hill, San Bruno Mountain, and the Coast Range are visible in the background when facing north or west. However, the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area is relatively flat, resulting in limited views. These elevated features are viewed mainly through channelized view corridors (i.e., areas between buildings and vegetation in the immediate foreground). Visual resources to the east, such as the Bay and the Bay Trail along San Bruno Canal, are generally not visible from the vicinity of the project site because of the flat topography, distance, and intervening structures that provide visual separations. Similarly, the project site is not visible from the Bay or the Bay Trail. The project site and its surroundings are not considered scenic vistas or scenic resources. Therefore, the obstruction of background views from the surrounding areas and adjacent roadways would not affect scenic vistas or scenic resources. Nearby areas with higher elevations, such as the South San Francisco hillside sign, Sign Hill, and San Bruno Mountain, provide vistas of the city, the Bay, and the surrounding region. The project site is partially visible from these areas; however, the project site is viewed as a minor element in the expansive views, which encompass the urbanized setting of South San Francisco, the surrounding cities, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO), with the Bay in the middleground and the Coast Range and the East Bay Hills in the background. The height of the proposed buildings (i.e., a maximum of 113 feet 6 inches to the top of the rooftop appurtenances) would not substantially affect these views because of the distance between the viewers and the project site. In addition, the proposed buildings would be viewed as a small component in the vast expanse of these views. Furthermore, the proposed buildings would not obstruct views of the Bay, sky, or the Coast Range as seen from higher elevations. Although the proposed building heights would be greater than those of the buildings immediately adjacent to the project site, they would be consistent with the multi-story buildings in the downtown area adjacent to U.S. 101. The proposed project would continue the pattern of mid-rise
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-3 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
building development along the west side of the U.S. 101 corridor. The proposed building heights would not substantially affect vistas because of the distance between the viewers and the project site; the superior position of viewers relative to the project site (i.e., at a higher elevation); the built-out, urban nature of the city; and the vast expanse of these views. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas. As noted in the General Plan EIR, as the City receives development applications, the applications, including the application for the proposed project, will be reviewed under the design review procedures in Chapter 20.480 (Design Review) of the City Zoning Ordinance, including Section 20.480.006 (Design Review Criteria), which specifically states that a site that is subject to design review shall be graded and developed with due regard for the natural terrain, aesthetic quality, and landscaping so as not to impair the environmental quality in the area. In addition, all future development, including the proposed project, would be required to comply with policies and actions of the General Plan that are designed to protect view corridors, scenic resources, and natural features. Consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would adhere to City standards, ensuring that impacts on scenic vistas would remain less than significant.
3.1.1.2 Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway The analysis of impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AES-2 (pages 3.1-14 through 3.1-16). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Although future development projects could occur within the vicinity of Interstate (I) 280 and State Route (SR) 35, these projects would be reviewed by the City to ensure that impacts related to scenic resources would remain less than significant. Moreover, subsequent development, infrastructure, and planning projects would be subject to the General Plan policies and actions, as well as the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, to reduce impacts related to scenic resources. The proposed project would not be located adjacent to, or in view of, a designated state scenic highway or corridor. The closest designated scenic highway is I-280, which is approximately 1.8 miles west of the project site. SR-35, which is 2.5 miles to the west, is eligible for designation as a state scenic highway. Most of the views of South San Francisco from these corridors are shielded by trees and buildings. Because of the distance, the project site is not visible from any portion of I-280 or SR-35. Therefore, no impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway or corridor would occur.
3.1.1.3 Visual Character The analysis of conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AES-2 (pages 3.1-16 and 3.1-17). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. As the City receives applications for subsequent development under the General Plan EIR, those applications will be reviewed for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan related to scenic quality in urbanized areas, including scenic views and scenic resources. In addition, the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, which implements the City General Plan, would be reviewed when development applications are received. Consistent with the General Plan EIR, the below analysis includes a review of the proposed project’s compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan and other appliable regulations related to scenic quality in urbanized areas.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-4 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
To illustrate the general appearance of the proposed development, photomontages/visual simulations from three vantage points were prepared, as included in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3. A photomontage is a photograph of existing conditions superimposed with an image of the proposed project over the photograph through the use of computer imaging techniques. The photomontages have been constructed in a photo-realistic fashion to show how the proposed development at the project site could look, inclusive of buildings and parking structure, compared to existing conditions. The photomontages are used to illustrate the development that is proposed by the project and provide a general representation of the buildings’ general massing, scale, and height upon project completion. They are included here for informational purposes and to give the viewer an idea of the scale and height of the proposed development relative to existing conditions. However, it is important to note that these photomontages are only representative of how the proposed project could look and are subject to revisions during the design review process. The following discussion evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with key regulations governing scenic quality.
General Plan Per the General Plan, key components of quality building design involve using sustainable, long-lasting building materials; orienting buildings toward streets to create inviting spaces; and designing buildings that reflect local history. The General Plan seeks to facilitate a building design that creates walkable and inviting spaces by locating parking behind buildings, allowing for outdoor plazas and dining areas, and locating building frontages in proximity to the sidewalk edge, where appropriate. The General Plan includes the relevant policies listed below that would assist in reducing or avoiding impacts from the proposed project related to visual quality.
Policy LU-5.2 requires high-quality designs and development standards for R&D companies that support a mix of larger higher-intensity campuses. The proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses (i.e., a small vehicle maintenance garage, pay booth, surface parking spaces) and construct R&D uses and an on-site amenity space. Overall, the proposed project would construct two new buildings (I101N and I101S), with heights ranging from six to seven stories and a maximum building height of 113 feet 6 inches at the top of the rooftop appurtenances. In addition, the proposed project would include a seven-story, or approximately 81-foot-tall, parking garage south of the I101S building. As shown in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3, buildings would be tied together through landscaping and open spaces to create a sustainable campus environment with improved bicyclist and pedestrian circulation and access, resulting in a high-quality design.
Policy LU-9.2 encourages distinctive architecture and elements that add visual interest to buildings to enhance people’s perceptions of South San Francisco as an interesting and inviting place. The proposed building exteriors would have primarily glass façades that would incorporate combinations of unitized curtain walls, glass storefronts, and aluminum panels to evoke a modern aesthetic. The I101N and I101S buildings would have metal-panel parapets to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. The buildings, as depicted in Figures 3.1-1b, 3.1-2b, and 3.1-3b, would include distinctive architecture to provide visual interest, as seen from U.S. 101.
Policy LU-8.8 maintains and protects unique public views of the city, the Bay, and local landmarks from major thoroughfares and hillside open spaces. Public views from scenic vistas and scenic resources are analyzed in Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2, above. The project site includes five protected trees. No other scenic resources are included on the project site or in the immediate vicinity.
Graphics … 104667 (04-28-2023) JCFigure 3.1-1
US 101 Northbound Facing Northwest
a.Existing
b.Proposed
Graphics … 104667 (04-28-2023) JCFigure 3.1-2
US 101 Southbound Facing Southwest
a.Existing
b.Proposed
Graphics … 104667 (04-28-2023) JCFigure 3.1-3
Shaw Road Facing North
a.Existing
b.Proposed
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-5 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Although a navigable slough is located south of the project site, this is not identified as a scenic resource in the City’s General Plan. However, the project site is visible from major throughfares, such as U.S. 101, and other public viewing areas, such as Shaw Road. Although these locations are not considered scenic views or unique public views, the proposed buildings would be highly visible and would partially block views of scenic resources, as seen from the aforementioned areas. As shown in Figures 3.1-1a and 3.1-2a (existing conditions), there are unobstructed views of the project site from both northbound and southbound U.S. 101. Motorists traveling northbound also have views of scenic resources such as Sign Hill, the South San Francisco hillside sign, and San Bruno Mountain in the background beyond the site. Motorists traveling southbound have views of the Coast Range in the background beyond the site. As depicted in Figures 3.1-1b and 3.1-2b (proposed conditions), the proposed buildings at the project site would be visible from both directions of U.S. 101 and considerably taller than the existing development in the immediate area. However, the proposed landscaping, which would be visible along the eastern perimeter, would soften the proposed project’s appearance and reduce its visual contrast with the surrounding landscape. In addition, although the proposed buildings would obstruct the majority of views of Sign Hill, the South San Francisco hillside sign, San Bruno Mountain, and the Coast Range from this segment of U.S. 101, U.S. 101 is not a designated scenic route. The freeway is highly traveled; however, motorists have only fleeting views of the project site because of the speeds permitted on U.S. 101 and because users of U.S. 101 typically direct their attention to the freeway ahead rather than views from the freeway. The views of the project site from U.S. 101 do not constitute unique public views, and motorists on U.S. 101 are not considered sensitive viewers. As shown in Figure 3.1-3a, because of the flat topography, existing features on the project site are not visible from Shaw Road. However, channelized views of San Bruno Mountain are available between buildings, vegetation, utility poles, and a large billboard when facing north on Shaw Road. The new buildings under the proposed project would be visible from Shaw Road (Figure 3.1-2b) and would block the majority of the existing background views of San Bruno Mountain. However, Shaw Road is in an industrial area that is surrounded by warehouse buildings and U.S. 101 and not considered a unique public view.
Policy SA-32.5 requires landscaping buffers and other buffers to reduce noise, visual, and air quality impacts from U.S. 101. As shown in Figures 3.1-1b and 3.1-2b, dense landscaping would be provided along the eastern perimeter of the project site, directly adjacent to U.S. 101. This would provide a buffer between the proposed buildings and U.S. 101 to reduce noise, visual, and air quality impacts from the freeway.
Policy LU-8.4 requires new development to add street trees, as well as other attractive landscaping, along streets and public spaces to provide shade and contribute positively toward public health outcomes and climate mitigation and adaptation. The proposed project would include trees along the perimeters of the project site, creating a visual buffer between the project site and the surrounding areas. The project site is in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area of the General Plan. The General Plan’s Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. Regardless, the proposed project would be consistent with the design standards and policies outlined in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable policies in the General Plan that govern scenic quality in an urbanized area, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-6 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Zoning Ordinance The City Zoning Ordinance contains architectural guidelines, design review criteria, lot and development standards, landscaping requirements, and other regulations for various land uses in order to promote aesthetic quality within the city and protect scenic views. In particular, Chapter 20.480 (Design Review) establishes the procedure for design review, ensuring that development supports General Plan policies that preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods and that scenic vistas are protected. Section 20.480.006 (Design Review Criteria) identifies the criteria by which the Design Review Board, Chief Planner, Planning Commission, or City Council evaluates applications and ensures that they conform to the policies of the General Plan, as well as any applicable specific plan, and are consistent with other policies or guidelines the City Council may adopt. The project site is designated in the City Zoning Code and in the General Plan, adopted October 2022, as Business Technology Park High (BTP-H). The BTP-H land use designation allows for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. The land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. The proposed project includes an R&D facility that would encourage a campus environment, with proposed buildings linked together through a cohesive network of landscaping and open space. A center landscaped courtyard would be located in the interior of the project site and framed by the shape of the proposed buildings to prioritize bicyclist- and pedestrian-friendly connections as well as outdoor amenities. The central courtyard would be publicly accessible, providing space for outdoor work, recreation, and socializing through its use of seat walls, paved areas, turf, and shade structures. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable regulations in the zoning ordinance that govern scenic quality, resulting in less-than-
significant impacts.
Municipal Code The City Municipal Code also contains rules and regulations related to visual character. Chapter 13.30 (Tree Preservation) requires the City, private property owner, and/or project applicant to preserve, protect, and plant trees in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the city. The proposed project would include a landscape plan to compensate for the removal of trees and vegetation and enhance the overall development. The landscape plan would include planting trees on-site to replace the trees removed during construction, in accordance with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance. As discussed above, there are 16 trees on the project site, including five protected trees. All of the on-site trees would be removed prior to project construction. However, the proposed project would comply with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance by acquiring a protected tree removal permit, thereby ensuring that project activities would not result in an unauthorized impact on a protected tree. In addition, upon project build-out, 225 trees would be provided within the central courtyard, surface parking lot, and terrace areas and along the western and southern perimeters of the project site. The proposed trees and all other landscaping would be planted in compliance with City regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable regulations in the City Municipal Code that govern scenic quality, resulting in less-
than-significant impacts.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-7 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Climate Action Plan The Climate Action Plan includes actions that would improve the visual character of the city. Specifically, implementation of Action CS 2.1 would expand the canopy cover to reach the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan,1 which would improve the visual character of the city. As discussed above, all of the on-site trees would be removed prior to project construction. However, upon project build-out, 225 trees would be provided at the project site, an increase of 209. The proposed trees would serve to expand the overall canopy cover, thereby helping to improve the visual character within the city. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable actions in the Climate Action Plan that govern scenic quality, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
3.1.1.4 Light and Glare The analysis of impacts on light and glare is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AES-4 (pages 3.1-17 through 3.1-19). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Subsequent development under the General Plan would create new sources of light and glare within the city, contributing to increased ambient nighttime lighting. However, as the City receives applications for subsequent development under the proposed project, those applications will be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance. Potential glare impacts will also be reviewed in the design review process. The below analysis includes the project-specific impacts related to light and glare. Any new source of project-related substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. Lighting at the project site would include linear LED channel-type, wall-mounted units on the exterior of the buildings and at building entrances. Exterior pole-mounted fixtures would be provided in open space areas, vehicular circulation areas, and other hardscaped areas. In addition, low-level pedestrian lighting would be provided along pathways. Lighting is proposed for site readability, safety, and visual interest. All exterior lighting would conform to the City Zoning Code, Section 20.300.008 (Lighting and Illumination). The project site is not near any light-sensitive receptors. The site is surrounded by transportation infrastructure, including U.S. 101. Consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result in a substantial new off-site source of light or glare, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
3.1.1.5 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on aesthetics is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.1-19 through 3.1-20. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Colma, Daly City, San Bruno, and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County, would change the visual character of the area, alter viewsheds, and introduce new sources of light and glare. However, with adherence to the administrative design review process and standards of each applicable jurisdiction, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 1 The City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), adopted in 2020, serves as a guide for managing, enhancing, and growing South San Francisco’s urban forest and community tree resources. The UFMP includes short-term actions and long-range planning goals to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy cover throughout South San Francisco.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-8 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would have a similar visual character as the project, and would introduce similar sources of light and glare. Given their proximity, they would be visible within the same viewshed. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with design review regulations and policies identified in the analysis above within the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related aesthetics. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.1.2 Conclusion With regard to Aesthetics, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because project specific impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-9 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts on forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State of California’s (State’s) inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. a) 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?
6.2.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, pp. 6-1 to 6-2
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 6.2.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, pp. 6-1 to 6-2
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
c) 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 for timberland production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]).
6.2.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, pp. 6-1 to 6-2
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? 6.2.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, pp. 6-1 to 6-2
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in non-agricultural use or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
6.2.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, pp. 6-1 to 6-2
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-10 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.2.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to agriculture and forestry has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 6.2, Effects Found Not to Be
Significant, of the General Plan EIR. The analysis of impacts on agriculture and forestry resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Section 6.2.1 (pages 6-1 to 6-2). No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources were identified in the General Plan EIR because the planning area is considered an urban environment with no existing agricultural or forestry land use within its boundaries. The project site and all surrounding lands within the planning area are identified as Urban and Built-up Land by the California Department of Conservation, with no important farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland).2 Consequently, there is no potential for the project to result in the conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural uses, and no land within the project site boundaries is agricultural land under a Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contract. Because there is currently no livestock at the project site, there would be no impact related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. In addition, the project site is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland production under the General Plan or Zoning Code. Because there is no forestland on the project site, there would be no impact related to the conversion of forestland to non-forestland uses. Consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would result in no impact on agriculture and forestry resources. Because the proposed project would have no impact, it would have no potential to contribute to cumulative impacts, resulting in no cumulative impact.
3.2.2 Conclusion With regard to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
2 Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: September 6, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-11 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.3 Air Quality
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact AIR-1, pp. 3.2-35 to 3.2-50 No No No No Yes
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated as a non-attainment area under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Impact AIR-2, pp. 3.2-50 to 3.2-54 No No No No Yes
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact AIR-3, pp. 3.2-54 to 3.2-56 No No No No Yes
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people?
Impact AIR-4, pp. 3.2-57 and 3.2-58 No No No No Yes
3.3.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to air quality has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR. The following discussion summarizes the results of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical
Report prepared for the proposed project, which is included in Appendix A.
3.3.1.1 Air Quality Plan Consistency The analysis of impacts related to conflicts with applicable air quality plans is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AIR-1 (pages 3.2-35 through 3.3-50). The General Plan EIR evaluated consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) 2017 Clean Air Plan and determined whether the General Plan would support the primary goals of the plan, include applicable control measures from the plan, disrupt implementation of the control measures from the plan, or result in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would be less than or equal to the corresponding population growth from the General Plan. The General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan would be consistent with the primary goals of the plan, which are reducing criteria pollutant emissions/attaining the ambient air quality standards, protecting public health, and reducing GHG emissions. The General Plan would support these goals through inclusion and implementation of General Plan policies, Climate Action Plan measures, and mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR. With respect to whether the General Plan includes control measures from the Clean Air Plan, the General Plan EIR found that the General
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-12 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Plan, City Zoning Ordinance, Climate Action Plan, and City Municipal Code include policies, actions, and requirements that incorporate components of the control measures from the Clean Air Plan. Similarly, the General Plan EIR found that no control measures would be disrupted from implementation of the General Plan. Finally, with respect to the rate of VMT growth versus population growth, the General Plan EIR determined that VMT growth would be greater than population growth and that VMT reduction strategies could not be accounted for in a programmatic analysis. As a result, the General Plan would not meet this goal from the Clean Air Plan because VMT would grow faster than the population. The impact would be significant and unavoidable. The proposed project would result in land uses similar to those proposed under the General Plan and is consistent with the land use designation and development density established for the project site. However, the BAAQMD recommends evaluating program-/plan-level projects and project-level projects differently. The analysis of project impacts conducted in the air quality technical report uses only the first three criteria noted above for evaluating consistency, per BAAQMD guidance (i.e., support the primary goals of the plan, include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan, disrupt implementation of the control measures from the Clean Air Plan). Comparing VMT to population growth is not included for project-level analyses. As noted in the air quality technical report, the proposed project would support the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan, would include control measures, and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any of the control measures. Consequently, the proposed project would be consistent with BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan. The impact would be less than significant. This level of impact is less than what was concluded in the General Plan EIR; that analysis found that VMT growth would exceed population growth, as required for plan-level analyses.
3.3.1.2 Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants and Precursors The analysis of impacts related to net increases in criteria pollutants is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AIR-2 (pages 3.2-50 through 3.2-54). The General Plan EIR did not quantitatively evaluate criteria pollutant emissions because such analysis is not required for plan-level projects. However, it found that construction of future development would need to implement necessary best management practices (BMPs) to control dust; therefore, Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1a would be required to ensure that the BMPs cited by BAAQMD would be implemented during construction. Construction-related impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation. The air quality technical report includes a quantitative analysis of construction emissions because adequate details are known about the construction process, unlike for the General Plan. Project construction emissions are shown in Table 5 of the air quality technical report. Such emissions would be below BAAQMD thresholds for reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), and particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Fugitive dust emissions are not shown in Table 5 because dust emissions are considered to be less than significant by BAAQMD if BMPs are implemented during construction. As stated in the air quality technical report, the proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-1a from the General Plan EIR. Implementation of this measure would ensure that fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant. Because the BMPs would be implemented to reduce fugitive dust and emissions of all other pollutants would be below the applicable thresholds, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This conclusion is consistent with that of the General Plan EIR.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-13 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure
MM AIR-1a. Individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD):
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
3.3.1.3 Long-Term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors The analysis of impacts related to net increases in criteria pollutants is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AIR-2 (pages 3.2-50 through 3.2-54). The General Plan EIR gives a quantitative assessment of emissions (i.e., area, energy, transportation emissions) associated with the General Plan for informational purposes. Some emissions would decrease from the baseline, such as transportation-related emissions of ROG and NOX, because of improved vehicle efficiency standards, electric-vehicle adoption, and older vehicle turnover. The General Plan EIR does not use emissions results to determine significance because, for a plan-level project, BAAQMD’s plan-level approach is used. As noted above, the General Plan would result in higher VMT growth than population growth; this would be considered a significant impact with respect to the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. This metric is also used to determine whether the General Plan would result in a cumulative considerable net increase in operational criteria pollutants. Consequently, because VMT would grow more than the population, the General Plan EIR concluded that the impact from operational criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-14 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
The air quality technical report includes a quantitative analysis of operational emissions. Project operational emissions are shown in Table 6 of the air quality technical report. All pollutants would be below BAAQMD thresholds; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. This level of impact is less than what was concluded in the General Plan EIR; that analysis found that VMT growth would exceed population growth, as required for plan-level analyses.
3.3.1.4 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Localized Concentrations of
Hazardous Air Pollutants The analysis of impacts related to sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of hazardous pollutant concentrations is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AIR-3 (pages 3.2-54 through 3.2-56). The General Plan EIR found that future development may result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs), which may cause adverse health effects, a potentially significant impact. Future development could add TAC sources that could affect sensitive receptors as well as residential uses or other sensitive receptors in areas that are affected by existing TAC sources. The General Plan EIR cites several General Plan policies that would reduce TAC emissions in the city and minimize the exposure of new sensitive receptors to TACs. With mitigation requiring a health risk assessment for future projects when sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet (MM AIR-1b), the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to TAC emissions would be less than significant. The project area does not include the types of sensitive receptors identified in the General Plan EIR; therefore, much of the General Plan EIR analysis that focuses on minimizing the exposure of new sensitive receptors to TAC emissions is not applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project would have no potential to expose new sensitive receptors to TACs, but the project itself would be a source of TACs. As noted in the air quality technical report, there are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site; the nearest sensitive receptors are the residences that are approximately 1,700 feet away. Because there are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site, a quantitative health risk assessment has not been conducted, consistent with the screening distance specified for MM AIR-1b from the General Plan EIR. As noted in the air quality technical report, concentrations of diesel particulate matter from mobile sources are typically reduced by 70 percent at a distance of approximately 500 feet. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 40, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. It is currently unknown if sources of TACs from laboratory uses would generate emissions; however, any future sources of fugitive lab-related emissions would need to comply with BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding best available control technology. In addition, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors (1,700 feet) would ensure that fugitive lab-related emissions would not cause a substantial pollutant exposure at sensitive receptors. As such, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction or operations. This impact would be less than significant, which is consistent with the conclusion from the General Plan EIR.
3.3.1.5 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Odorous Emissions The analysis of impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to odorous emissions is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact AIR-4 (pages 3.2-57 through 3.2-58). The General Plan EIR concluded that future development could result in odor emissions and also add more sensitive receptors in areas that may be exposed to odor impacts (e.g., areas near wastewater treatment
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-15 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
plants, coffee roasters). However, the conclusion of the General Plan EIR is that odor impacts associated with future development would be less than significant because future projects would comply with applicable regulations in the zoning ordinance, along with BAAQMD’s rules and regulations pertaining to odors. The proposed project would result in development similar to that analyzed in the General Plan EIR; however, as determined in the air quality technical report, the proposed project would not be a land use that would be typically associated with odor complaints, based on California Air Resources Board guidance. Some odors would occur temporarily during construction, including odors from diesel-powered equipment, exhaust from haul vehicles, and off-gassing from architectural coatings, but these odors would dissipate rapidly as a function of distance. During operation, the emergency generators would also result in short-term odors during occasional generator testing; the odors would occur for only approximately half an hour per month per generator. As determined in the air quality technical report, the nearest sensitive receptors would be more than 1,000 feet from the project site; compared with the existing industrial land uses in the vicinity of the project site, odors from the project site would be similar. In addition, as with future development associated with the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would comply with applicable regulations from the zoning ordinance and BAAQMD pertaining to odors. This impact would be less than significant and consistent with the General Plan EIR conclusion.
3.3.1.6 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on air quality is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.2-58 through 3.2-63. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to odors or the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, implementation of the General Plan would result in conflicts with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. Therefore, the General Plan EIR would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar air quality impacts as the project. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with applicable air quality regulations and policies identified in the analysis above within the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan, including mitigation measures, to reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Nonetheless, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, could result in a significant cumulative impact related to air quality. However, given that the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to air quality, the proposed project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be significant, but not exceeding the cumulative impact previously identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-16 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.3.2 Conclusion With regard to Air Quality, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. Implementation of mitigation measures and/or development policies and standards contained within the General Plan would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-17 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.4 Biological Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact BIO-1, pp. 3.3-18 to 3.3-22 No No No No Yes
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact BIO-2, pp.3.3-22 and 3.3-23 No No No No Yes
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Impact BIO-3, pp.3.3-23 to 3.3-25 No No No No Yes
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Impact BIO-4, pp.3.3-26 and 3.3-27 No No No No Yes
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact BIO-5, pp.3.3-27 and 3.3-28 No No No No Yes
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Impact BIO-6, pp.3.3-28 and 3.3-29 No No No No Yes
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-18 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.4.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to biological resources has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR. The below description of the existing biological resource setting is provided for the project site. The project site is completely developed and within a predominantly developed and urbanized area. The site is bounded by Terminal Court, preceding additional development to the north; an approximately 40-foot-wide ruderal buffer associated with a drainage ditch preceding U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway) to the east; a tidal slough to the south; and the Golden Gate Produce Terminal to the west. Because the project site is completely developed, it does not contain natural land cover, protected wetlands/waters, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities. The on-site vegetation includes 16 trees; five of which are classified as protected trees under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.3 The on-site vegetation is not considered a sensitive natural community. No water features or waterways are on the project site. Although the project site is developed, some natural resource features are located nearby. A ruderal drainage ditch is located immediately east of the site, a navigable slough (i.e., tidal slough) is approximately 70 feet south of the site, and Colma Creek, a perennial stream, is approximately 0.3 mile north of the site. The ruderal drainage ditch drains into the navigable slough, which drains to San Bruno Canal and then Colma Creek, which empties into San Francisco Bay approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The biological resources impact analysis is based on a desktop review and evaluation of the following sources:
• A California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)4 species list query for the project site and 1-mile buffer area;
• A California Native Plant Society (CNPS)5 species list query for the U.S. Geological Survey San Mateo (3712264) 7.5-minute series quadrangle;
• A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)6 query for the project site;
• Arborist Report for Terminal 101, South San Francisco, CA, July 26, 2022;7 and
• South San Francisco General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.8 3 HMH. 2022. Arborist Report for Terminal 101 Project, South San Francisco, CA. Pg. 2. 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind Records Search. RareFind Version 5. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed: April 18, 2023. 5 California Native Plant Society. 2023. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html. Accessed: April 18, 2023. 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. IPaC Species List. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed: April 18, 2023. 7 HMH. 2022. Arborist Report for Terminal 101 Project, South San Francisco, CA. 8 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-19 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.4.1.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species The analysis of impacts on special-status species is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact BIO-1 (pages 3.3-18 through 3.3-22). The General Plan EIR determined that, because South San Francisco is a built out city, new development would occur primarily on parcels that already contain homes or businesses. Therefore, with implementation of MM BIO-1, Special-Status Species, Migratory Birds,
and Nesting Birds, and existing policies, the impact on special-status species would be less than significant. Because the project site is completely developed and no natural land cover or sensitive natural communities are present on the site, special-status wildlife species are not anticipated to occur on the site, with the exception of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), resident and migratory nesting birds protected under state law (California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513) and federal law (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act), and bats protected under state law (California Fish and Game Code Section 4150). Queries of the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC regarding species with potential to occur in the region are included in Appendix B. There is no potential habitat for special-status plants or special-status fish within the project site, but there is suitable habitat for two species of special-status fish near the project site: longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). However, the majority of species listed in the queries have low or no potential to occur on the project site because it is outside the species’ range, lacks habitat for these species, and/or the surrounding dense urban development acts as a barrier between potential habitat and the site. Peregrine falcon is designated as fully protected by CDFW. Peregrine falcons normally nest in a scrape on a cliff ledge but also in snags, large vacant nests in trees, or on ledges, including those on buildings; pigeons are often favored prey around cities.9 The trees within the project site may provide suitable roosting habitat for this species, and the large buildings and trees surrounding the project site may provide nesting and roosting habitat. In addition, open air in and around the project site provides foraging habitat when prey is present. If nests for this species are present in the surrounding area and eggs, nestlings, or nesting individuals are substantially affected by construction noise or nighttime lighting during operation, a significant impact could occur. The landscaping (e.g., trees, shrubs and ornamental grasses) and structures within or near the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors, which, as described above, are protected under State and federal law. The proposed project would remove landscape vegetation, including 16 trees, within the project site10 (Appendix C). If nests are present on-site or in the surrounding area and eggs, nestlings, or nesting individuals are harmed or killed during vegetation removal or substantially affected by construction noise or nighttime lighting during operation, a significant impact could occur. Trees and structures within or near the project site could also provide suitable roosting habitat for bats, which are protected under State law; however, limited foraging habitat surrounds the project site. If bats are present in trees or existing structures within the project site and tree or structure removal results in disturbance, direct mortality, or roost site abandonment, resulting in reduced reproductive success, a significant impact could occur.
9 National Audubon Society. 2023. Guide to North American Birds – Peregrine Falcon. Available: https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/peregrine-falcon. Accessed: April 18, 2023. 10 HMH. 2022. Arborist Report for Terminal 101 Project, South San Francisco, CA.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-20 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Longfin smelt, a fish species designated as threatened by CDFW, and green sturgeon, a fish species designated as threatened by USFWS, have the potential to occur in the navigable slough south of the project site because this aquatic habitat is within the known range for the species. The proposed project would not result in direct impacts on longfin smelt or green sturgeon because no aquatic habitat is located on the project site; however, the potential exists for the proposed project to indirectly affect water quality in the navigable slough. Indirect impacts on aquatic habitats could occur because of impacts on water quality. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, local drainage is managed by storm drain infrastructure. The proposed project would be required to comply with local and State regulations that call for implementation of BMPs to protect water quality during construction and operation. In addition, discharges from storm drains to surface waters would be in compliance with waste discharge requirements. Groundwater that fails to meet water quality standards would be treated prior to discharge or hauled off-site for treatment and disposal. Temporary dewatering is anticipated during construction; however, no permanent dewatering would be required during operation. Because there would be no direct impacts on longfin smelt or green sturgeon and water quality would be protected with implementation of local and State regulations, the proposed project’s impact on longfin smelt and green sturgeon would be less than significant. Nonetheless, due to the potential for the peregrine falcon, resident and migratory birds, and roosting bats to occur at the project site, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact due to the removal of existing on-site trees and buildings. However, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 identified in the General Plan EIR, which requires project applicants to prepare focused surveys for special-status species, nesting birds, or migratory birds, impacts on special-status species including peregrine falcon, nesting birds, and roosting bats, would be less than significant
with implementation of General Plan EIR mitigation measures. This conclusion is consistent with that of the General Plan EIR.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1, Special-Status Species, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds. Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected Species. Applicants or sponsors of projects on sites where potential special-status species, migratory birds, or nesting birds are present shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct a focused survey per applicable regulatory agency protocols to determine whether such species occur on a given project site. The project applicant or sponsor shall ensure that, if development of occupied habitat must occur, species impacts shall be avoided or minimized, and if required by a regulatory agency or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, loss of wildlife habitat or individual plants shall be fully compensated on the site. If off-site mitigation is necessary, it shall occur within the South San Francisco Planning Area whenever possible, with a priority given to existing habitat mitigation banks. Habitat mitigation shall be accompanied by a long-term management plan and monitoring program prepared by a qualified Biologist, and include provisions for protection of mitigation lands in perpetuity through the establishment of easements and adequate funding for maintenance and monitoring.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-21 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.4.1.2 Impacts on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural
Communities The analysis of impacts on special-status species is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact BIO-2 (pages 3.3-22 through 3.3-23). The General Plan EIR identifies Colma Creek and the navigable slough, both within the vicinity of the project site, as ecologically sensitive areas. The General Plan includes policies and actions designed to protect riparian and other sensitive natural communities, and the City Zoning Ordinance provides further rules and regulations regarding development in areas with sensitive habitats. Future projects would be required to comply with these General Plan policies and actions, as well as the Zoning Ordinance, related to the protection of riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, and therefore, would result in less than significant impacts. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present on the project site. The existing trees and landscaping on the project site are not considered part of a sensitive natural community. The closest areas with potential for sensitive natural communities are the ruderal drainage ditch, located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site, and the wetland habitat associated with the navigable slough, approximately 70 feet south of the project site. The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive natural communities; however, indirect impacts on potential sensitive natural communities could occur because of impacts on water quality. However, as described in Section 3.4.1.1 above and Section 3.10.1, below, there would be no direct impacts on sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat, as water quality would be protected through compliance with local and State regulations. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
3.4.1.3 Impacts on State or Federally Protected Wetlands The analysis of impacts on state or federally protected wetlands is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact BIO-3 (pages 3.3-23 through 3.3-25).The General Plan EIR establishes that, with implementation of MM BIO-3, Assess Potential Wetland Impacts, the effects of development on nearby Colma Creek and the navigable slough would be less than significant. No federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters are present on the project site. The nearest jurisdictional waters to the project site are Colma Creek and the navigable slough, which are north and south of the project site, respectively. Colma Creek is a perennial stream that empties into San Francisco Bay, with headwaters in San Bruno Mountain State Park. Colma Creek is approximately 0.3 mile north of the project site, and the portion of the creek closest to the project site is contained within a concrete channel. The navigable slough is an estuarine wetland approximately 70 feet south of the project site. The navigable slough passes through a culvert under the Bayshore Freeway and then empties into San Bruno Canal before joining Colma Creek, approximately 0.3 mile downstream from San Bruno Canal. A drainage ditch adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site provides 40 feet of ruderal buffer between the site and the Bayshore Freeway. The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts on Colma Creek, the navigable slough, or the drainage ditch separating the project site from the Bayshore Freeway. Nonetheless, the potential exists for the proposed project to indirectly affect water quality. However, as described in Section 3.4.1.1 above and Section 3.10.1, below, because there would be no direct impacts on jurisdictional waters or wetlands, and because water quality would be protected through compliance with local and State regulations, the proposed project’s impact on potentially protected wetlands would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-22 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.4.1.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites The analysis of impacts on wildlife movement and native wildlife nursery sites is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact BIO-4 (pages 3.3-26 through 3.3-27). The General Plan EIR establishes that, with implementation of MM BIO-1, Special-Status Species, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds, and MM BIO-3, Assess Potential Wetland Impacts, the impact of projects under the General Plan on migratory fish or wildlife species would be less than significant. No wetlands or running waters are present on the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not affect fish movement. All project activities would occur within an already-developed footprint. Any common urban-adapted species that currently move through the project site would continue to be able to do so following construction. Should non-nesting birds be on the project site when disturbance occurs, they could readily vacate the site and relocate to other areas. Wildlife corridors are described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space that would otherwise be separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, or other natural or man-made obstacles, such as urbanization. The project site does not occur between areas of natural open space; the nearest open space is more than 2,800 feet east and south of the project site. Nonetheless, the project site is within the Pacific Flyway, a bird migratory route, and the likelihood exists for trees on the project site to be used by migratory birds. In addition, the likelihood exists for trees or structure on the project site to be used by birds and bats as a nursery site. Should the proposed project interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, a significant impact could occur. As described above, impacts on nesting migratory birds and bats would be minimized through implementation of General Plan EIR MM BIO-1 and compliance with existing lighting regulations. Operation of the proposed project would include the use of new lighting and a new vertical structure with potentially reflective surfaces. The new lighting and the new surfaces on the building could misdirect or confuse migratory birds or bats, resulting in disruption with respect to natural behavioral patterns and possible injury or death from exhaustion or collisions with buildings. The potential for these types of impacts could be heightened because of the proposed project’s location within the Pacific Flyway and proximity to San Francisco Bay. Impacts on migratory birds and bats from proposed buildings and increased lighting levels could be significant. However, impacts would be minimized through implementation of MM BIO-1, which would require surveys for special-status species. In addition, City Zoning Ordinance Section 20.300.008 includes lighting and illumination regulations that minimize artificial sky brightness, glare, and potential disruption to nocturnal ecosystems. The impact on migratory birds due to operation of the proposed project would be less
than significant with mitigation.
3.4.1.5 Conflicts with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological
Resources The analysis of impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact BIO-5 (pages 3.3-27 through 3.3-28). The General Plan EIR establishes that projects under the General Plan would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance and therefore not conflict with local policies or ordinances for protecting biological resources. The impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-23 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
City Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 1271-2000, City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, defines a “protected tree” as:
• Any tree of the following species with a circumference of 75 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade: blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), black Acacia (Acacia
melanoxylon), Myoporum (Myoporum laetum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), glossy privet (Lingustrum lucidum), and Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra);
• Any heritage tree of the following species with a circumference of 30 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade: California bay (Umbellaria californica), oak (Quercus spp.), cedar (Cedrus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus var. asplenifolius), strawberry tree (Arbutus spp.), Mayten (Maytenus
boaria), and little gem dwarf southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora);
• Any tree, other than the species listed above, with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade;
• A tree, or stand of trees, with a designation based on findings that it is unique and of importance to the public because of its unusual appearance, location, or historical significance; or
• A stand of trees where each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. According to the arborist report (Appendix C),11 16 trees are documented on the project site, five of which are classified as protected trees, according to City Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 1271-2000, City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30. The proposed project would comply with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance by acquiring a protected tree removal permit, thereby ensuring that project activities would not result in an unauthorized impact on a protected tree. No impact would occur. This impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. Since certification of the General Plan EIR, the City adopted a bird-safe design ordinance, City Municipal Code Chapter 20.310.002, in accordance with Action ES-2.2.1 of the General Plan, which calls for the City to develop a bird safe design ordinance to minimize the adverse effects on native and migratory birds and require new development east of U.S. 101 to incorporate design measures. The ordinance includes bird-safe glazing requirements that pertain to the first 60 feet of a building’s height for buildings within 300 feet of an Urban Bird Refuge as well as buildings with uninterrupted glass segments 24 square feet or larger. The City has not identified any Urban Bird Refuges within city limits, and the Municipal Code does not contain any guidelines or criteria for defining an Urban Bird Refuge. However, based on guidelines from other nearby jurisdictions, such as the City of San Francisco, an Urban Bird Refuge is typically defined as an open space that is 2 acres or larger and dominated by vegetation, vegetated landscaping, forest, meadows, grassland, wetlands, or open water. Using this definition, the navigable slough (covering approximately 2.1 acres) south of the project site could be considered an Urban Bird Refuge. Furthermore, the I101S building, which would be north of the navigable slough, would contain uninterrupted glass segments 24 square feet or larger, and therefore would be subject to the bird-safe design ordinance (assuming the navigable slough is an Urban Bird Refuge). Neither the I101N building, which would be more than 300 feet from the navigable slough, nor the I101 garage, an open-air structure without uninterrupted glass segments 24 square feet or larger, would be subject to the bird-safe design ordinance. The majority of the south-facing façade of the 11 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-24 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
I101S building (i.e., the façade closest to the navigable slough) would be obstructed from the navigable slough by the I101 garage and would not be subject to the bird-safe design requirements. However, for the portions of the façade that would be within 300 feet of the navigable slough, the proposed project would incorporate ultra-violet hatched/fritted glazing for the first 60 feet of the I101S building’s height; this would include all of the west-facing façade and a portion of the south-facing façade, in accordance with similar bird-safe design requirements from other nearby jurisdictions (see Appendix D, Bird Safe Design Strategy). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources. Impacts would be less
than significant.
3.4.1.6 Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan The analysis of impacts related to conflicts with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact BIO-6 (pages 3.3-28 through 3.3-29). The General Plan EIR determined that projects under the General Plan would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The impacts would be less than significant. The project site is not part of, or near an area covered by, an adopted or proposed habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan or any other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The nearest area covered by a habitat conservation plan is San Bruno Mountain, which is approximately 4 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
No impact would occur.
3.4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on biological resources is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.3-29 through 3.3-34. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, and Millbrae, could result in cumulative impacts to biological resources. However, with adherence to General Plan policies and actions, along with requirements defined in the City’s Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance to protect biological resources, as well as standards of each applicable jurisdiction, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar biological resources impacts as the project. Similar to the project site, the Infinite 131 project site contains development with limited landscaping; therefore, habitat for
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-25 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species is marginal. Therefore, as with the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project could have an impact on nesting special-status and migratory bird species. However, the Infinite 131 project would also be subject to the requirements of the wildlife protection laws, including CESA, MBTA, and the California Fish and Game Code, as well as wildlife protection policies and provisions, and mitigation measures identified in the General Plan and City Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.4.2 Conclusion With regard to Biological Resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. Implementation of mitigation measures and/or development policies and standards contained within the General Plan EIR would reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-26 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.5 Cultural Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 pp. 3.4-32 to 3.4-34 No No No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact CUL-2, pp. 3.4-34 and 3.4-35 No No No No Yes
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Impact CUL-3, p. 3.4-36 No No No No Yes
3.5.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to cultural resources has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR. To supplement the environmental setting discussion in the General Plan EIR, ICF conducted a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, requested a review of the Sacred Lands File of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento, and evaluated historic-age properties on the site for listing in the NRHP and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The Built-Environment Resources Study for the Infinite 101 Project and
Archaeological Resources Study for the Infinite101 Project were prepared by ICF to analyze potential project impacts. The following discussion is based on the two technical reports. The Built-Environment
Resources Study for the Infinite101 Project is included as Appendix E; the Archaeological Resources
Study for the Infinite 101 Project is confidential and not for public release as it contains the locations of archaeological sites. Distribution and access should be restricted to those with a need to know.
3.5.1.1 Historical Resources The analysis of impacts on historical resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact CUL-1 (pages 3.4-32 to 3.4-34). The General Plan EIR concluded that future development would not result in significant adverse effects on historical resources. Impacts would be less than significant because development under the General Plan would need to comply with the City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance as well as General Plan policies and actions. Section 2.56.080 of the City Municipal Code requires the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures, sites, and areas that are reminders of past eras, events, and persons who were important to local, State, or national history or provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past or are elements in the history of architecture. Policy ES-9.5 in the General Plan requires the preparation of historic
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-27 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
surveys as part of development project requirements and the submittal of historic reports and surveys as part of the environmental review process. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Pursuant to the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would undergo project-specific environmental review in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 in order for the City to determine whether a building or structure greater than 45 years of age at the time of application is a historic resource and take appropriate action, such as requiring additional site-specific or project-specific measures to reduce any potential impacts. Thus, it is likely that the proposed project’s construction activities would be similar to those indicated in the General Plan EIR and would result in similar impacts. To identify the known historic resources or previously unidentified or undesignated resources on the project site, the Built-Environment Resources Study for the Infinite101 Project was prepared. It includes the results of a NWIC records search. No previously recorded built-environment resources were identified on the project site. In addition, one historic-age resource (two building components of the pay booth and office) at 101 Terminal Court was evaluated for listing in the NRHP and CRHR. An ICF architectural historian conducted a site survey on the project site on February 23, 2023, to examine and photograph the built-environment resources. In March 2023, ICF completed an intensive-level historical resources survey of 101 Terminal Court, documenting the historic-age building’s physical characteristics, historic context, site history, and NRHP/CRHR evaluations on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form set. The technical report and DPR form set are included in Appendix E. A summary of the evaluations for 101 Terminal Court under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 through D/4 is provided below.
• Criteria A/1 (significant events): The pay booth/office building is an undistinguished example of an ancillary building design and typology that was used to supplement light industrial and commercial development in post–World War II South San Francisco. It does not appear to have contributed substantially to the local, regional, or national economy or significant patterns of events.
• Criteria B/2 (significant persons): Associations with the original property owner and developer of the surface parking lot with the ancillary buildings, Park ‘n Fly, are limited to the unremarkable ownership and operation on the site and do not appear to have made significant contributions to local, State, or national history.
• Criteria C/3 (significant architecture or construction): The ancillary pay booths/office is a modest example of simple, functional building components that were used to supplement the operations of a commercial automotive enterprise (i.e., a short- and long-term parking lot). It is not a good example of the utilitarian type and does not reflect any particular architectural style. The configuration, massing, and design aspects of the building components are functional. They lack ornamentation that would distinguish them or exemplify a style or method of construction. The ancillary pay booths/office is not associated with a known architect or designer. It is a common, unremarkable example of its type and does not possess high artistic value.
• Criteria D/4 (information potential): The ancillary pay booths/office appears unlikely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. As concluded in the built-environment technical report, the historic-age building on the project site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR because of a lack of significance under the NRHP/CRHR evaluative criteria. Moreover, the project site does not contain a built-environment resource that qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, new
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-28 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
development on the project site would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of any built-environment historical resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion from the General Plan EIR, which found that impacts on historical resources would be less than significant.
3.5.1.2 Archaeological Resources The analysis of impacts on archaeological resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact CUL-2 (pages 3.4-34 to 3.4-35). Impacts would be less than significant because development under the General Plan would need to comply with the following policies and regulations:
• Policy ES-10.1, which requires the City to maintain formal procedures for minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeological resources.
• Policy ES-10.2, which requires the City to support educational efforts that increase community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco’s archaeological resources.
• Policy ES-10.3, which requires that development proposals be referred to the NWIC of the California Archaeological Inventory, NAHC, and local Native American tribes, for review and recommendations regarding supplemental field investigation.
• Policy ES-10.4, which requires a records review for any development proposed in areas of known archaeological resources.
• Policy ES-10.5, which requires that if construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Economic and Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures. Under this policy, work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and the protections have been approved by the Economic and Community Development Department.
• Section 20.110.004 (Supplemental Regulations) of the Zoning Code Amendments of the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, which states that open space uses allowed within the Terrabay Preservation Parcel must be in conformance with the General Plan and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement executed in March 2000 between Terrabay Partners. L.L.C., Myers/Sunchase I, L.L.C., The Center for Biological Diversity, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the City of South San Francisco, including wetlands preservation and mitigation, habitat preservation, and preservation of archaeological resource site CA-SMa-40. On February 28, 2023, an ICF archaeologist conducted a records search for the project site and a 0.25-mile radius at the NWIC (NWIC File #22-1322). The NWIC, an affiliate of the Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resources records and reports for San Mateo County. In addition, the online repositories of the Office of Historic Preservation were consulted regarding resources on the project site and within a 0.25-mile radius (Office of Historic Preservation 2018 and 2023). The records search identified one previously recorded archaeological resource on the project site:
• P-41-000047 (CA-SMA-43): Originally recorded in 1909 by N. Nelson as a shell mound (Mound 382) in South San Francisco. The location is near U.S. 101 and San Bruno Canal (between Shaw Road and South Airport Boulevard). However, no evidence of the resource was identified at this
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-29 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
location during archaeological surveys conducted by Basin Research Associates in 1988 or Woodward-Clyde Consultants in 1995, nor was evidence identified during a geoprobe conducted in 2016 by AECOM. Based on these negative results, AECOM concluded that the resource was either mapped incorrectly or no longer present. As detailed in the General Plan EIR, build-out under the General Plan could result in new residential and nonresidential development, as well as public improvements, that could affect known or previously unidentified archaeological resources within the planning area (see Impact CUL-2 of the General Plan EIR). However, compliance with General Plan policies and actions, as well as the regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance, would ensure that future development projects would be appropriately reviewed and designed in terms of potential impacts on archaeological resources. Consistent with General Plan policies and actions, the proposed project would be required to comply with the regulations, to the extent feasible, to reduce any potential impacts on archaeological resources. Specifically, the proposed project would be subject to General Plan Policy ES-10.5, described below, to address potential impacts on archaeological resources.
Policy ES-10.5, Discovery of Significant Historic or Prehistoric Archaeological Artifacts. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of a significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifact, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Economic and Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resource shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures. Work may resume only when appropriate protections are in place and approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of any archaeological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion from the General Plan EIR, which found that impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant.
3.5.1.3 Human Remains The analysis of impacts on human remains is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact CUL-3 (page 3.4-36). As detailed in the General Plan EIR, excavation and construction allowed under the General Plan may uncover human remains that may not be marked in formal burial locations (Impact CUL-3). Therefore, future development and infrastructure projects, including the proposed project, are to be reviewed by the City and evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, City Municipal Code, and applicable State regulations. In addition, under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological materials, which applies to “any evidence of human activity.” Public Resources Code Section 5097 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow when Native American human remains are inadvertently discovered during excavation and construction. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code sets forth provisions related to the treatment of human remains, including the treatment of human remains found in locations other than a dedicated cemetery, and the responsibilities of the coroner. These requirements apply to all construction projects within the General Plan planning area, which includes the proposed project. Furthermore, the General Plan includes policies and actions to reduce impacts on archaeological resources, including human remains. Policy ES-11.1, detailed below, requires the City to identify, preserve, and protect tribal cultural resources, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-30 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites, in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s). Policy ES-11.1 further requires appropriate treatment of Native American and other human remains discovered during project construction.
Policy ES-11.1, Identification of Tribal Cultural Resources. Encourage the identification, preservation, and protection of tribal cultural resources, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites, in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s) and ensure appropriate treatment of Native American and other human remains discovered during project construction. Implementation of policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as compliance with adopted State, federal, and local regulations for the protection of archaeological resources and human remains, would ensure that future development under the proposed project would result in a less
than significant impact on human remains.
3.5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on cultural resources is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.4-38 through 3.4-40. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, and Millbrae, could result in impacts on known or previously unidentified cultural resources. However, with adherence to federal, State, and local laws and policies that protect cultural resources, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar cultural resources impacts as the project. The Infinite 131 project would be constructed on an infill site that is in an area that is already highly disturbed. It is likely that the Infinite 131 project would be constructed on a site where the ground surface has been disturbed and/or covered with fill and gravel. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with regulations set forth by local, State, and federal agencies which protect cultural resources, including policies and actions identified in the General Plan, to ensure that project activities would not result in the inadvertent destruction of an archaeological resource and that human remains discovery procedures would be implemented. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-31 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.5.2 Conclusion With regard to Cultural Resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-32 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.6 Energy
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
6. ENERGY:
Would the project: a) Result in a potentially significant environment impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
Impact ENER-1, pp. 3.5-17 to 3.5-22
No No No No Yes
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Impact ENER-2, pp. 3.5-22 and 3.5-23
No No No No Yes
3.6.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to energy has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.5, Energy, of the General Plan EIR.
3.6.1.1 Result in the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption
of Energy Resources The analysis of impacts on energy resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact ENER-1 (pages 3.5-17 through 3.5-22). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan would result in additional development that could consume energy resources, compliance with State regulations, the Climate Action Plan, General Plan policies, and development standards outlined in the City Municipal Code would ensure that future development under the General Plan would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Furthermore, the consumption of energy resources in the form of vehicle fuel would be minimized by promoting transited-oriented development and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies under the General Plan. The below analysis includes the project-specific impacts on energy resources.
Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in temporary use and consumption of energy resources on the project site. Construction energy would include the electricity used to power electric construction equipment and deliver water to the construction site, along with the gasoline and diesel fuel used to transport workers and drive haul trucks to and from construction sites or operate off-road equipment. It is estimated that construction of the proposed project would use approximately 6,581 megawatt hours of electricity, 149,431 gallons of gasoline, and 168,695 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction period. No natural gas would be used
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-33 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
during project construction. Construction energy consumption would cease once construction of the proposed project is complete; therefore, such consumption is considered short term. In addition, in accordance with Chapter 15.60 of the City Municipal Code, 100 percent of all inert solids (i.e., building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (i.e., all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City during project construction and demolition, which would result in energy reductions. Construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact would be less than significant and was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
Operation Energy would also be required to heat and cool the proposed buildings, provide indoor and outdoor lighting, and move water/wastewater. The proposed project would consume energy during normal day-to-day operations associated with the proposed R&D uses, including the use of personal and mass transit vehicles by employees and visitors/guests when traveling to and from the project site, which would require energy in the form of gasoline, diesel, and/or electricity. It is estimated that operation of the proposed project buildings would use approximately 25,536,162 kilowatt hours of electricity, and 2,203 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Energy consumed from mobile vehicle trips during project operations would be approximately 418,787 gallons of gasoline, 45,648 gallons of diesel, 302,978 kilowatt hours of electricity, and 2,224 gallons of natural gas per year. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project would incorporate sustainability features to reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. The proposed project would achieve a minimum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4.1 Building Design and Construction (BD+C) Core and Shell Gold rating as well as WELL v2 Core Gold certification.12 Proposed sustainability measures would include an all-electric building design; the use of on-site renewable energy from rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels; a high-performance building envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system; ultra-efficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures; low-water-demand native and/or adapted vegetation with efficient irrigation systems; on-site recycling and composting facilities; and electric-vehicle charging infrastructure. In addition, the proposed project would implement TDM measures to reduce the number of trips generated to and from the project site (see Appendix F), which would reduce the consumption of energy resources such as vehicle fuel. As such, the use of energy resources during project operation would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Because of the proposed project’s size and location within an urban setting, build-out of the proposed project would not significantly increase energy demand within the service territory and would not require new energy facilities. The proposed project would be required by law to adhere to California Code of Regulations Title 24, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), as well as adopted City energy conservation ordinances and regulations. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to implement relevant policies from the City’s Climate Action Plan, which are geared toward reducing operational GHG emissions. This would indirectly reduce energy consumption (see the discussion in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Accordingly, with implementation of adopted State and City energy conservation measures, the proposed project 12 The WELL Building Standards are performance-based building standards for measuring and monitoring features within the built environment that may affect human health through air, water, light, and other concepts. The standards provide ways for buildings to be designed to improve human comfort and enhance health and wellness within the built environment.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-34 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
3.6.1.2 Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable
Energy or Energy Efficiency The analysis of impacts related to conflicts with State or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plans is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact ENER-2 (pages 3.5-22 and 3.5-23). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan would result in additional development that could conflict with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans, compliance with the Climate Action Plan, General Plan policies, and development standards outlined in the City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance would ensure that potential impacts from new development would be less than significant. As discussed above, the proposed project would encourage implementation of sustainability and transportation features and be required to comply with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and the impact would be less than
significant.
3.6.1.3 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on energy is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.5-23 through 3.5-24. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, and Millbrae, could increase the consumption of energy resources. However, with adherence to the General Plan and CAP policies and actions, the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, and standards of each applicable jurisdiction, as well as State, regional, and local policies to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar energy impacts as the project. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would most likely include features that would reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy generation, and would also be required to comply with all adopted state and local renewable energy and energy efficiency regulations and plans. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to energy. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-35 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.6.2 Conclusion With regard to Energy, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-36 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.7 Geology and Soils
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Impact GEO-1, pp. 3.6-17 to 3.6-20
No No No No Yes
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Impact GEO-1, pp. 3.6-20 and 3.6-21
No No No No Yes
iii. Seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction? Impact GEO-1, pp. 3.6-21 and 3.6-22
No No No No Yes
iv. Landslides? Impact GEO-1, pp. 3.6-22 and 3.6-23
No No No No Yes
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact GEO-2, pp. 3.6-23 and 3.6-24
No No No No Yes
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that would be unstable as a result of the project and result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Impact GEO-3, pp. 3.6-24 to 3.6-26
No No No No Yes
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Impact GEO-4, pp. 3.6-26 to 3.6-27
No No No No Yes
e) Have soils that would be incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact GEO-5, pp. 3.6-27 and 3.6-28
No No No No Yes
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Impact GEO-6, pp. 3.6-28 and 3.6-29
No No No No Yes
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-37 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.7.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to geology and soils has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.6, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, of the General Plan EIR.
3.7.1.1 Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault The analysis of impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-1 (pages 3.6-17 to 3.6-20). The General Plan EIR determined that, with adherence to applicable local codes and implementation of the policies and actions included in the General Plan, potential impacts associated with surface fault rupture within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone would be less than significant.13 A design-level geotechnical investigation was prepared for the proposed project by Haley & Aldrich, Inc., to analyze potential project impacts. The discussion below is based on the Design-Level
Geotechnical Investigation 101 Terminal Court South San Francisco, California, which is included as Appendix G. The proposed project is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site; therefore, the design-level geotechnical investigation for the project site concluded that the risk of surface faulting and secondary ground failure is low.14 In addition, the proposed project would adhere to the applicable local codes and General Plan policies and actions indicated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact is considered less than
significant.
3.7.1.2 Strong Seismic Ground Shaking The analysis of impacts related to the strong seismic ground shaking is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-1 (pages 3.6-20 to 3.6-21). The General Plan EIR determined that, through compliance with mandatory California Building Code (CBC) requirements and implementation of General Plan policies and actions, future development would be constructed to withstand strong seismic ground shaking, and project-related impacts would be less than significant.15 The proposed project would be located in an area designated as Zone VIII (Very Strong) for ground shaking and therefore could experience moderate structural damage during a seismic event.16 However, the proposed project would adhere to the applicable CBC requirements and General Plan policies and actions indicated in the General Plan EIR, which would reduce impacts related to ground shaking to a less-than-significant level.
13 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-20. 14 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco,
California. Pg. 15. 15 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-21. 16 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Exhibit 3.6-2, Ground Shaking.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-38 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.7.1.3 Seismically Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction The analysis of impacts related to seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction, is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-1 (pages 3.6-21 to 3.6-22). The General Plan EIR noted that future projects in areas that are susceptible to ground failure would be required to prepare site-specific soil and geologic reports, which would be reviewed by the City Engineer. Such reports would include recommendations and actions for construction, which would reduce impacts related to seismically related ground failure (e.g., liquefaction, ground settlement, lurching, lateral spreading, ground cracking) to a less-than-significant level.17
Liquefaction The General Plan EIR identified an area with high liquefaction potential in the eastern portion of the city. However, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to liquefaction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance as well as policies and actions of the General Plan.18 The project site would be located within a Liquefaction Zone19 and the potential for on-site liquefaction in the upper 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) would be considered high due to the presence of saturated silty soils.20 Layers of sand, silty sand, and sandy silt are also considered liquefiable and were identified in layers of varying thickness beneath the site at depths of between 16 and 80 feet bgs. The design-level geotechnical investigation recommended excavations at the project site of up to 25 feet. It also stated that the denser coarse alluvial soils of the Colma Foundation below the liquefiable layers would be suitable to support structures, and proposed deep foundations (including Tubex and auger-cast piles) bearing on this layer. Compliance with the recommendations in the design-level geotechnical investigation, as well as the City Municipal Code and the policies and actions in the General Plan, would reduce impacts related to liquefaction to a less-than-significant level.
Lateral Spreading The General Plan EIR identified areas that could be at risk from lateral spreading, particularly along streams and waterfronts. However, the General Plan EIR determined that compliance with the City Zoning Ordinance, which would require a site-specific soil and geologic report to be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer, would reduce impacts from lateral spreading to a less-than-significant level.21 The proposed project would be located near a free face (navigable slough) at the southern edge of the project site. The design-level geotechnical investigation estimated that lateral spreading could be in the range of 30 to 130 inches and recommended that detailed analysis be presented during the design-level 17 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-22. 18 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-20, 25. 19 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code
Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Exhibit 3.6-5, Liquefaction Potential. 20 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco,
California. Pg. 14. 21 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-22.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-39 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
phase of the proposed project.22 Per the City Zoning Ordinance, this analysis would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and any necessary recommendations would be complied with. Therefore, through compliance with the recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation and the City Zoning Ordinance, impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than
significant.
3.7.1.4 Landslides The analysis of impacts related to landslides is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-1 (pages 3.6-22 to 3.6-23). The General Plan EIR determined that portions of the city with more than a 15 percent slope may be susceptible to landslide risks. However, through adherence to applicable City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance sections, as well as General Plan policies and actions, the General Plan EIR determined that with impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.23 The topography of the project site is relatively flat, with an overall slope ranging from 0 to 2 percent. As identified in the General Plan EIR, the project site would be located in an area with a moderate landslide risk.24 However, the design-level geotechnical investigation did not identify landslides as a geotechnical issue that would affect design and construction.25 Therefore, through adherence to applicable City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance sections, as well as General Plan policies and actions, impacts related to landslide risk would be less than significant.
3.7.1.5 Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil The analysis of impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-2 (pages 3.6-23 to 3.6-24). The General Plan EIR determined that, through compliance with mandatory National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements (i.e., for construction projects that would disturb more than 1 acre), City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance rules and regulations, and General Plan policies and actions, impacts related to erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.26 As part of project construction, soil-disturbing activities at the 8.69-acre project site would require a NPDES permit as well as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would require erosion and sediment controls during construction. In addition, the proposed project would abide by Chapter 15.08 (CBC) of the City Municipal Code, which includes drainage and erosion control requirements, and Section 14.04.132 (site design measures for non-regulated projects), which requires measures that call for minimizing land disturbance and impervious surfaces.27 Therefore, through adherence to permit requirements and City Municipal Code sections, impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. 22 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco,
California. Pg. 15. 23 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-23. 24 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan. Exhibit 3.6-4, Landslide Potential. 25 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco,
California. Pg. 12. 26 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-24. 27 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-23.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-40 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.7.1.6 Result in On- or Off-site Landslide, Lateral Spreading,
Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse The analysis of impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-3 (pages 3.6-24 to 3.6-26). As discussed above, the General Plan EIR determined that portions of the city are susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, and liquefaction. According to the General Plan EIR, site-specific soil and geologic reports, which would be reviewed by the City Engineer, would be required for projects in areas that are susceptible to instability. Such projects would be required to abide by applicable City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance sections, as well as General Plan policies and actions, which would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.28 The proposed project’s design-level geotechnical investigation determined that the potential for cyclic densification at the project site is low.29 However, the investigation also determined that the site is underlain by soft Young Bay Mud, which is highly compressible, and new fill and a building pad could result in up to 5.5 inches of settlement.30 Recommendations for deep foundations, as well as Tubex piles and auger-cast piles, are provided in the design-level geotechnical investigation to minimize impacts related to settlement, along with landslides, lateral spreading, and liquefaction. Therefore, through adherence to permit requirements and City Municipal Code sections, as well as the recommendations provided in the design-level geotechnical investigation, impacts related to locating the proposed project on an unstable geologic unit or soil would be less than significant.
3.7.1.7 Expansive Soil The analysis of impacts related to expansive soil is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-4 (pages 3.6-26 to 3.6-27). The General Plan EIR noted that expansive soils are generally located in the central portion of the city and not the eastern portion, which is primarily artificial fill.31 The General Plan EIR determined that, though compliance with the City Municipal Code, City Zoning Ordinance, and CBC, along with policies and action of the General Plan, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. The proposed project’s design-level geotechnical investigation determined that mitigation measures would not be required because of the nature of the surficial soil (fill) at the project site, which has low expansivity.32 Because expansivity would be low and the proposed project would adhere to City Municipal Code, City Zoning Ordinance, and CBC rules and regulations, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
28 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-22. 29 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco,
California. Pg. 15. 30 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco,
California. Pg. 16 31 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-26. 32 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California. Pg. 16
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-41 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.7.1.8 Soils that Would Be Incapable of Adequately Supporting the use
of Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems The analysis of impacts related to wastewater disposal systems in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-5 (pages 3.6-27 to 3.6-28). The General Plan EIR noted that South San Francisco is a fully built city, and the vast majority of new development would be occurring on parcels that are served by existing sewer lines.33 Therefore, impacts related to soils that would be incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be less than significant. The proposed project would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. In addition, the proposed project would upgrade an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main to a 12-inch main. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be necessary. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact related to soils that would be incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
3.7.1.9 Paleontological Resources or Unique Geological Features The analysis of impacts on paleontological resources or unique geological features is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GEO-6 (pages 3.6-28 to 3.6-29). The General Plan EIR noted that any earthmoving activity could result in the inadvertent discovery, as well as disturbance, of a paleontological resource. The Merced Formation and the Colma Formation, which underlie portions of the city, are known to be potentially fossiliferous. The General Plan EIR included MM GEO-6, which requires paleontological monitoring of all proposed excavation within the Merced and Colma Formations.34 With the implementation of MM GEO-6, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The design-level geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project by Haley & Aldrich, Inc., determined that the project site is underlain by the Colma Formation, between 65 and 70 feet bgs.35 The design-level geotechnical investigation recommended extending deep foundations and piles into the Colma Formation. Because the proposed project would be required to implement MM GEO-6, the impact on paleontological resources would be less than significant with
implementation of General Plan EIR mitigation measures. This significant impact was evaluated as a significant impact in the General Plan EIR.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-6. Applicants, owners, and/or sponsors of all future development or construction projects shall be required to perform or provide paleontological monitoring for all proposed excavations in the Colma Formation and Merced Formation, including those in the shallow subsurface below Quaternary deposits, because of high paleontological sensitivity for significant resources in these areas. Should significant paleontological resources (e.g., bones, teeth, well-preserved plant elements) be unearthed by a future project construction crew, 33 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-28. 34 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.6-29. 35 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Design‐Level Geotechnical Investigation, 101 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California. Pg. 22.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-42 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
project activities shall be diverted at least 15 feet from the discovered paleontological resources until a professional vertebrate paleontologist has assessed such discovered resources and, if deemed significant, salvaged the resources in a timely manner. The applicant/owner/sponsor of said project shall be responsible for diverting project work and providing the assessment, including retaining a professional vertebrate paleontologist for such purpose. Collected fossils shall be deposited by the applicant/owner/sponsor in an appropriate repository (e.g., University of California Museum of Paleontology, California Academy of Sciences) where the collection shall be properly curated and made available for future research.
3.7.1.10 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on geology and soils is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.6-29 through 3.6-31. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including San Mateo County, could result in cumulative impacts on geology, soils, and paleontological resources. However, with adherence to federal, State, and local laws and policies that protect paleontological resources, and standards of each applicable jurisdiction, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar geology and soils impacts as the project. The Infinite 131 project would be required to go through environmental and regulatory review and comply with the California Building Code, and have a site-specific geotechnical investigation performed, which would provide design recommendations to reduce the project’s impacts. Similar seismic safety standards would apply to the Infinite 131 project. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative geology and soils impact. In addition, similar to the proposed project, it is possible that that Infinite 131 project could encounter paleontological resources. However, if paleontological resources are discovered during project construction, implementation of MM GEO-6 would ensure that the Infinite 131 project’s impact on paleontological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-43 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
4.7.2 Conclusion With regard to Geology and Soils, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. Implementation of mitigation measures and/or development policies and standards contained within the General Plan EIR would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-44 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact GHG-1, pp. 3.7-53 to 3.7-66
No No No No Yes
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact GHG-2, pp. 3.7-66 to 3.7-84
No No No No Yes
3.8.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to greenhouse gas emissions has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the General Plan EIR. The following discussion summarizes the results of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Technical Report prepared for the proposed project, which is included in Appendix A.
3.8.1.1 Construction GHG Emissions The analysis of impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GHG-1 (pages 3.7-53 to 3.7-66). The General Plan EIR did not quantitatively evaluate GHG emissions because such analysis is not required for plan-level projects. However, it found that construction of future development would need to implement Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1a to ensure that the BMPs cited by BAAQMD would be implemented during construction. Mitigation Measure AIR-1a, which includes the required list of best management practices to reduce dust, would serve to reduce emissions of GHGs by minimizing idling time and ensuring that all equipment is properly maintained and tuned. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code promotes the redirection of recyclable materials generated during construction away from landfills (Chapter 15.60) and requires that all project applicants submit a recycling management plan to estimate the volume of debris generated during construction, and the estimated amount of debris that would be sent to the landfill. Further, Section 15.62 of the City Municipal Code requires the City to encourage contractors to make every structure planned for demolition available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition; and to recover the maximum feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition. With compliance with local policies, regulations, and Mitigation Measure AIR-1a, construction-related impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation. The air quality technical report includes a quantitative analysis of construction emissions, because adequate details are known about the construction process, unlike for the General Plan. Project construction emissions are shown in Table 9 of the air quality technical report and add up to 3,678
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-45 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
metric tons CO2e for the entire construction period. Unlike for criteria pollutants, BAAQMD has not adopted a quantitative threshold of significance for construction GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR notes that future development, which includes the project, would be required to comply with the requirements of the City Municipal Code noted above and with Mitigation Measure Air-1a, and future development would thus not generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the General Plan and would thus be consistent with that conclusion from the General Plan EIR. Impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.
3.8.1.2 Operational GHG Emissions The General Plan EIR also includes a quantitative assessment of citywide GHG emissions from build-out of the General Plan. The analysis calculates a service population metric for GHG emissions, which is the emissions of GHGs divided by the total population and number of jobs in South San Francisco. The service population metric is then compared to the threshold from CARB of 4.0 metric tons CO2e per service population. As noted in the General Plan EIR, the service population threshold was calculated based on plan-level GHG emissions thresholds recommended in CARB’s Scoping Plan and represents the rate of emission reductions necessary for the City to achieve a fair share of Statewide GHG reductions necessary to meet the State’s long-term GHG reduction targets. The General Plan EIR concludes that future development in the City would result in emissions less than the threshold of 4.0 (specifically, 3.55 metric tons CO2e per service population), and thus future development would not result in GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. With respect to project operations, Table 10 in the air quality technical report presents GHG emissions, which are approximately 4,274 MT CO2e per year. The air quality technical report also presents a calculated service population metric for GHG emissions, which is the emissions of GHGs divided by the total population and jobs in the city. The project’s service population would be approximately 1,548 employees.36 Therefore, the project would result in annual per service population GHG emissions of 2.76 MT CO2e, which is below the General Plan EIR’s estimated service population GHG emissions of 3.55 MT CO2e.37 The General Plan EIR cites a comprehensive list of policies from the General Plan that would help reduce GHG emissions from future development, including the project. The project would be required to comply with the applicable policies from the General Plan, and thus GHG emissions may be reduced below the values shown in the air quality technical report. Because the project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the General Plan and within the estimated service population GHG emissions, the General Plan EIR conclusion also applies to the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
3.8.1.3 Plan Consistency The analysis of impacts related to conflicts with applicable plan, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact GHG-2 (pages 3.7-66 to 3.7-84). The General Plan EIR evaluated consistency of the General Plan with CARB’s 2017
Climate Change Scoping Plan, the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Plan Bay Area 2050, and the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan. With 36 696,343 square feet / one employee per 450 square feet = 1,548 employees. 37 4,274 metric tons of CO2e per year / 1,548 service population = 2.76 MT CO2e
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-46 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
respect to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, the General Plan EIR notes that the General Plan and City’s CAP include GHG reduction actions that are similar to those recommended in the Scoping Plan, and thus there would be no conflict. Similarly, the General Plan EIR notes that the General Plan and the City’s CAP include GHG reduction actions that are also consistent with the policy strategies related to GHG emissions from Plan Bay Area 2050, and thus there would be no conflict with this plan. Additionally, as noted above for Air Quality, the General Plan EIR found that the General Plan, City Zoning Ordinance, Climate Action Plan, and City Municipal Code include policies, actions, and requirements that incorporate components of the control measures from the BAAQMD Clean Air
Plan. Similarly, the General Plan EIR found that no control measures would be disrupted from implementation of the General Plan. GHG plan consistency impacts were found to be less than significant. With respect to the project’s plan consistency, the air quality technical report provides an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the City’s CAP, SB 32 and the Scoping Plan, and Plan Bay Area 2050. As determined in the air quality technical report, the project would not conflict with any of the applicable plans and is consistent with the growth assumptions in the General Plan; thus, the project would be consistent with the less-than-significant impact conclusion from the General Plan EIR.
3.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.7-83 through 3.7-84. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Colma, Daly City, San Bruno, and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County, could result in significant greenhouse gas impacts. However, with adherence to the General Plan and CAP policies and actions, the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, and standards of each applicable jurisdiction, as well as State, regional, and local policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Climate change is a global problem, and GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants (such as ozone precursors), which are primarily pollutants of regional and local concern. Given the long atmospheric lifetimes, GHGs emitted by various sources worldwide accumulate in the atmosphere. No single emitter of GHGs is large enough to trigger global climate change on its own. Rather, climate change is the result of the individual contributions of countless past, present, and future sources. Therefore, GHG impacts are inherently cumulative, and the analysis above is inclusive of cumulative impacts.
3.8.2 Conclusion With regard to Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. Implementation of mitigation measures and/or development policies and standards contained within the General Plan EIR would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-47 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact HAZ-1, pp. 3.8-24 to 3.8-26
No No No No Yes
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact HAZ-2, pp. 3.8-26 to 3.8-28
No No No No Yes
c) Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact HAZ-3, pp. 3.8-28 to 3.8-29
No No No No Yes
d) 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 to the public or the environment?
Impact HAZ-4, pp. 3.8-29 to 3.8-30
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact HAZ-5, pp. 3.8-30 to 3.8-32
No No No No Yes
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ-6, pp. 3.8-32 to 3.8-34
No No No No Yes
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Impact WILD-1, pp. 3.16-11 to 3.16-15
No No No No Yes
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-48 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.9.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to hazards and hazardous materials has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were prepared in 2022 for the proposed project by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. to analyze potential project impacts. The following discussion is based in part on the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments, which are included as Appendix H.
3.9.1.1 Routine Hazardous Materials Use The analysis of impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HAZ-1 (pages 3.8-24 to 3.8-26). The General Plan EIR concluded that development would result in additional residential and nonresidential development, as well as private and public improvements, throughout the planning area. Consequently, this could result in an increase in the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. However, it was determined that future projects would be required to comply with the requirements and regulations set forth by the City, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and BAAQMD. Therefore, impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Construction Project construction would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking. Such transport, use, and disposal must comply with applicable requirements and regulations, such as the regulations set forth by the agencies mentioned above. Although solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would be transported, used, and disposed of during the construction phase, these materials, which would be handled on a temporary basis, are typically used in construction projects and would not represent the routine transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Any spills or releases involving these materials would be expected to be small, localized, and cleaned up as they occur. Therefore, project construction 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.
Operation Because of the nature of R&D uses, the possibility exists for hazards related to the handling of hazardous materials. Any R&D tenant who handles hazardous materials would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations for qualifying hazardous materials, seek consultation with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services (SMCEHS), and apply for applicable permits for any regulated substances that may pose a threat to public health and safety or the environment because of their highly toxic, flammable, or explosive nature. Tenants must comply with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, principles prescribed by the
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-49 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
U.S. Department of Health Services) to ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. In addition, registration of the hazardous materials through the SMCEHS Hazardous Material Business Plan Program would be required to ensure safe and responsible handling of those qualifying materials. In addition, the City requires building spaces to be designed to handle intended office and R&D uses through the use of sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the City’s Fire Code (City Municipal Code Section 15.24010, which adopts the California Fire Code by reference, with additional local amendments). Compliance with State and local regulations would ensure that buildings would be equipped with safety measures, including sprinklers and alarms, to minimize potential impacts from the presence of hazardous materials. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for completed structures, the City would require a final inspection from the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) to ensure that all building systems are in conformance with the City Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association requirements. Landscape maintenance on the project site would require the use of a wide variety of commercial products that are formulated with hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, cleaners and degreasers, solvents, paints, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, 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 cleaned up as they occur. Finally, compliance with Caltrans regulations would ensure that all necessary safety precautions would be taken during the transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the proposed project. Mandatory compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment during operation, and this impact would be less than significant.
3.9.1.2 Upset and Accident Conditions Involving Hazardous Materials The analysis of impacts related to the upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HAZ-2 (pages 3.8-26 to 3.8-28). The General Plan EIR noted that development would result in additional residential and nonresidential development throughout the Planning Area with most occurring on parcels that already contain existing land uses. Development could also result in other private and public improvements throughout the city with the potential for environmental effects related to hazardous materials. As such, construction activities associated with new development have the potential to release potentially hazardous soils and groundwater into the environment during site grading and excavation. Likewise, demolition of existing structures could potentially result in the release of hazardous building materials. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with State law and implementation of federal, State, and local General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance during construction activities would ensure that future development would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Site-specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I and Phase II ESAs) were conducted in April and May of 2022 by Haley & Aldrich on the project site. The objective of the Phase I ESA was to assess whether “recognized environmental conditions” (REC), historical RECs (HREC), and controlled RECs (CREC) were identified with the site. No RECs, HRECs, or CRECs were noted; however, a potential environmental concern and data gap were identified. The potential environmental concern
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-50 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
was associated with a former fueling facility in the northern portion of the adjoining property to the west of the project site (131 Terminal Court). The Phase I ESA concluded that due to distance and upgradient location of this property, there would be a potential for impacted groundwater and/or vapor to migrate onto the north end of the project site. It was noted in the Phase I ESA that the SMCEHS would need to be notified of any proposed change in land use or removal of soil and groundwater in proximity to the impacted 131 Terminal Court area. This could include the northern end of the project site. The data gap presented in the Phase I ESA was related to the absence of soil and groundwater sampling results from the removal of a former onsite underground storage tank (UST). No records pertaining to the removal of the 10,000-gallon gasoline UST were found in the records provided by SMCEHS, the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) which oversaw the UST removal. The purpose of the May 2022 Phase II ESA was to assess the subsurface environmental conditions that would be encountered by future redevelopment activities onsite (taking into consideration the Phase I ESA findings). The Phase II ESA consisted of advancing six soil borings for the collection of soil and groundwater samples where historical activities or features may have posed an environmental concern. The Phase II findings were the following:
• Soil and groundwater samples in the vicinity of the former 10,000-gallon UST identified as a data gap in the Phase I ESA report, did not indicate the presence of affected soil or groundwater.
• Soil conditions were not anticipated to affect redevelopment and are not likely to be characterized as hazardous waste if excavated for offsite disposal, however, there is a limited exception associated with soil classified as California-hazardous waste due to elevated leachable lead concentrations detected in the shallow soil (in the vicinity of one of the soil borings). Arsenic levels were above background concentrations, but the Phase II ESA noted that some local landfills accept arsenic levels up to 500 mg/kg.
• There was no indication of a potential vapor intrusion risk due to groundwater samples collected. Based on these findings, the Phase II ESA included the following recommendations that would be incorporated as part of the proposed project prior to, and during construction activities:
• Groundwater would be sampled and characterized if encountered during excavation or dewatering activities due to the potential environmental concern associated with the former USTs at 131 Terminal Court.
• Dewatering activities would comply with the applicable Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements due to the potential environmental concern associated with the former USTs at 131 Terminal Court.
• A Site Management Plan (SMP) and health and safety plan (HASP) would be prepared prior to media disturbance to outline special soil handling procedures involving onsite shallow soils. If excavation and/or grading activities would be performed in the vicinity of where hazardous waste would be excavated, further site-specific health and safety measures would be required.
• It is anticipated site soil would be suitable for disposal at Class III landfills. The sampling results provided a preliminary evaluation of the expected waste profile for the soil to be disposed off-site during construction activities. Additional sampling of the actual soil generated and stockpiled for off-site disposal may be required for future waste profiling.
• SMCEHS would be notified of any proposed change in land use or removal of soil and groundwater in proximity to the former USTs located at the 131 Terminal Court property.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-51 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
In addition to the Phase I and Phase II ESAs, a limited lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos sampling and analysis was conducted in April 2022 by Sol Environmental on the garage and guard shack structures located on the project site. Thirty-two samples of suspected asbestos containing materials were obtained as part of the investigation. Ten samples were collected from the storage garage and twenty-two samples were collected from the guard shack. The samples were collected in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40 CFR 763 subpart E Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. A total of nineteen representative samples analyzed (for LBP) by X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) were taken during the analysis. Seven samples were collected from the storage garage and twelve were collected from the guard shack. Laboratory results identified asbestos in five samples taken from the guard shack. All other samples did not yield detectable concentrations of asbestos. In addition, some of the materials analyzed from the guard shack contain lead in paint, (less than 1.0 mg/cm2 but more than 0.01 mg/cm2). Based on these findings, the limited LBP and asbestos sampling and analysis included the following recommendations that would be incorporated as part of the proposed project prior to, demolition activities. For construction activities that may encounter asbestos or asbestos-containing materials:
• Removal and disposal must be performed in accordance with Federal, State and Local requirements. The texture coat and joint compound are categorized as Asbestos-Containing Construction Materials (ACCM – 0.1 to 1 percent asbestos by weight). ACCM is regulated by the federal OSHA and Cal/OSHA. The removal must be conducted by a Contractors State License Board– and Cal/OSHA-registered asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with 8 CCR 1529 Asbestos in Construction Standard.
• The abatement process would be conducted in accordance with a written (site-specific) specification for work that includes a removal scope of work, contractor qualification submittals, work protection, removal procedures and a post-abatement inspection and testing protocol.
• Any new, inaccessible, or hidden material that may be discovered during the demolition process would be presumed to contain asbestos in accordance with 8 CCR 1529. Such materials would undergo removal, encapsulation, or enclosure. The contractor would ensure that all work (removal and/or disturbance) that would impact presumed and suspect asbestos and lead materials/components is performed following all regulatory requirements and practices and procedures designed to prevent dispersal of said materials. All containment efforts and engineering controls implemented would be documented with photos to ensure compliance. For construction activities that may encounter lead:
• Repair/painting work would be carried out by a contractor certified by the EPA Repair, Renovation, and Painting rule.
• The contractor shall provide proof of the following:
o All work would follow proper lead-safe work practices, including containment, wet methods, and use of HEPA filter–equipped vacuums.
o Work would follow the South San Francisco Building Division interior/exterior lead-paint work notification and lead-safe work practices.
o Workers would be trained in compliance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-52 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
With the implementation of the Phase II ESA recommendations and Limited LBP and Asbestos Sampling and Analysis recommendations, which are enforceable through existing legal requirements and uniformly applied development policies and standards, potential impacts associated with upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
3.9.1.3 Exposure to Schools The analysis of impacts related to hazardous materials in proximity to schools is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HAZ-3 (pages 3.8-28 to 3.8-29). The General Plan EIR noted that the city is served by both public and private schools, including 15 schools within the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD), one private elementary school, 10 preschools, and 10 daycare centers. As such, the General Plan EIR concluded that it is possible that future development, which may involve hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials and wastes, may occur within 0.25 mile of an existing or future school. However, development would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials, including those codified in the General Plan and Section 20.300.009 (Performance Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, future development (including redevelopment) would be required by the local CUPA to store, manage, and dispose of the materials in accordance with the Unified Program. Impacts would be less than significant. There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The closest school is the All-Souls Catholic School at 479 Miller Avenue in South San Francisco, approximately 0.74 mile northeast of the project site. No impact associated with hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing school would occur.
3.9.1.4 Cortese List Sites The analysis of impacts related to Cortese List sites is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HAZ-4 (pages 3.8-29 to 3.8-30). The General Plan EIR noted that South San Francisco has a history of industrial uses, dating back to the 1920s and 1930s when large tracts of land were used for heavy industrial uses. According to the General Plan EIR, industrial uses, including warehouse, manufacturing, and business park uses that generate hazardous material, are generally concentrated east of U.S. 101 and in the Lindenville, Orange Park, and El Camino Sub-Areas. However, development could occur on a contaminated site; therefore, it was determined that future discretionary projects would be evaluated for project-specific impacts related to hazardous materials. In reviewing individual project applications, the City would determine which General Plan policies and actions, as well as City Zoning Ordinance sections, would apply, depending on the specific characteristics of the project type and/or project site, during the development review process. Impacts would be less than significant. According to the Phase I ESA, the proposed project site was not located in any environmental database that would qualify as a Cortese List data resource. As such, no impact would occur.
3.9.1.5 Airport Hazards The analysis of impacts related to airport hazards is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HAZ-5 (pages 3.8-30 to 3.8-32). The General Plan EIR noted that the planning area is within the sphere of influence of Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 as well as the boundaries of Airport Influence Areas A and B of the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The SFO ALUCP requires all residential development within Area A, which is the entirety of San Mateo County, to provide real estate disclosures. Within Area B, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is responsible for reviewing proposed land use policy actions, including new general plans, specific
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-53 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
plans, zoning ordinances, plan amendments, rezoning proposals, and land development proposals. As such, development could expose people residing or working in the planning area to a safety hazard or excessive noise because of proximity to SFO. However, future projects would be required to comply with the policies and actions within the General Plan and the City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance regarding interior noise standards and the maximum building heights permitted under Federal Aviation Regulations. In addition, continued consultation with the C/CAG and Federal Aviation Administration regarding projects in the vicinity of SFO would minimize the exposure of people residing or working in South San Francisco to a safety hazard or excessive noise. Impacts would be less than significant. The project site is located within Airport Influence Area B of the SFO ALUCP and would be required to comply with the policies and actions associated with interior noise standards and maximum building heights (included in the General Plan and City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance). Please refer to Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, and Section 3.13, Noise, for a discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with the SFO ALUCP. In addition, as the proposed project is within Area B, a consultation with the C/CAG and Federal Aviation Administration would be required prior to project construction. This includes determining the need to file form 7460-I, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA for any project that would exceed FAA notification heights, as shown on ALUCP Exhibit IV-10, and complying with the FAA Aeronautical Study Findings. With the 7460-I filing, the FAA then undertakes an aeronautical study of the project and determines whether there is a Determination of No Hazard or a Determination of Hazard. A Determination of Hazard is made when a project would cause an obstruction to air navigation, resulting in a substantial aeronautical impact. Consistent with the General Plan EIR findings, the project would, therefore, require a consistency determination with the ALUCP to comply with FAA regulations for height. The Project Applicant would be required to receive a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation as a condition of approval for a building permit for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3.9.1.6 Impairment of Emergency Response or Emergency Evacuation
Plans The analysis of impacts on emergency response and evacuation is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HAZ-6 (pages 3.8-32 to 3.8-34). The General Plan EIR noted that future development would result in additional residential and nonresidential development along with other potential private and public improvements. As such, future development could also result in an increase in demand for emergency response services and for emergency evacuation routes within the Planning Area. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that the City has adequate existing inter-jurisdictional programs, which along with the City’s focus on maintaining and enhancing emergency management capacity and evacuation routes, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. The proposed project would not include any permanent changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the project site or surrounding area. During construction, it is possible that construction activity could potentially affect emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other roadway obstructions that could impede emergency access on-site. However, compliance with City requirements regarding circulation and access during construction would minimize potential impacts associated with emergency response times access.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-54 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
The project would generate about eight to nine vehicle trips per minute on average during peak hours; this would not introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles traveling near the project site. The proposed project would not include features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities, and emergency services vehicles would continue to have access to all facilities throughout the City. In addition, emergency vehicles would have full access to the project site from all driveways connecting to adjacent streets. Furthermore, R&D tenants who handle hazardous materials would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations (including Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan coordinated with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services and the South San Francisco Fire Department). Adherence to the aforementioned regulations and plans would ensure that response and evacuation in the event of an emergency would not be impaired. As such, the proposed project would not impair implementation or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less
than significant.
3.9.1.7 Wildland Fires The wildfire analysis is not located in the hazards and hazardous materials section of the General Plan EIR, it is located in its own section 3.16, Wildfire (see Impact WILD-1 on pages 3.16-11 to 3.16-15). The General Plan Draft EIR stated that the Planning Area being analyzed was not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a local, State, or federal responsibility area. However, the Planning Area was identified as being adjacent to land identified as Moderate FHSZ within an SRA and High FHSZ within an SRA (San Bruno Mountain State Park). It was noted that while there are no Very High, High or Moderate FHSZs within the city limits, the Signal Hill Park area is susceptible to wildfires. The General Plan Draft EIR noted that future development is generally focused in already developed areas of the city; however, development could result in an incremental increase in exposure of people and structures to wildland fires due to the proximity to high fire hazard areas. As such, future projects would be required to comply with fire protection measures in the policies and actions within the General Plan and the City Municipal Code. Furthermore, implementation of the San Mateo – Santa Cruz County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, San Mateo County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and San Mateo County Emergency Operations Plan, as well as review of architectural and development plans by the SSFFD, Division of Fire Prevention, would assist in protecting life and property during a wildfire. Implementation of the General Plan policies and other applicable actions (mentioned above) would reduce potential impacts related to exposure to wildland fires and associated hazards to less than significant. The General Plan Planning Area, including the project site, is not located in an FHSZ in a SRA or a VHFHSZ in an LRA. The project site and all surrounding areas are within an LRA that is not identified as a Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. The area surrounding the project site is generally developed and lacking features that normally elevate wildland fire risks (e.g., dry vegetation, steeply sloped hills, etc.). Because the project site is not located within or near an SRA or a VHFHSZ, and because the proposed project would comply with all policies and regulations outlined in the General Plan related to wildfire, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-55 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.9.1.8 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on hazards and hazardous materials is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.8-34 through 3.8-36. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, and Millbrae, could result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. However, with adherence to federal, State, and local laws and policies regulating hazards and hazardous materials, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar hazards and hazardous materials impacts as the project. The Infinite 131 project could result in construction impacts related to the routine transport, disposal, or handling of hazardous materials; intermittent use and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, and fuels; and transport of affected soil to and from sites. However, hazardous waste generated during construction of the project would be collected, properly characterized for disposal, and transported in compliance with federal, state and local regulations. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. For the Infinite 131 project, various project-specific measures (such as the ones identified for this project) would be implemented as a condition of development approval to mitigate risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. With implementation of applicable regulatory requirements, cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant, and the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative hazard or hazardous materials impact.
3.9.2 Conclusion With regard to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-56 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Issue Area
Where In the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Impact HYD-1, pp. 3.9-27 to 3.9-31
No No No No Yes
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact HYD-2, pp. 3.9-31 to 3.9-33
No No No No Yes
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner the would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Impact HYD-3i, pp. 3.9-33 and 3.9-34
No No No No Yes
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Impact HYD-3ii, pp. 3.9-34 and 3.9-35
No No No No Yes
iii. 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
Impact HYD-3iii, pp. 3.9.35 and 3.9.36
No No No No Yes
iv. Impede or redirect floodflows? Impact HYD-3iv, pp. 3.9-36 and 3.9-37
No No No No Yes
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants because of project inundation? Impact HYD-4, pp. 3.9-38 to 3.9-40
No No No No Yes
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-5, pp. 3.9-40 and 3.9-41
No No No No Yes
3.10.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to hydrology and water quality has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of the General Plan EIR.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-57 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.10.1.1 Water Quality As analyzed in Impact HYD-1 of the General Plan EIR (pages 3.9-27 to 3.9-31), construction activities associated with development of the projects allowed under the General Plan would include grading, excavation, and the removal of vegetative cover, with the potential to result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants that could degrade surface and groundwater quality. Other sources of pollution during construction include fuel, grease, oil and other fluids, concrete, sediment, and litter, which, if accidently discharged, could degrade water quality. Future development that disturbs 1 acre or more of soil must obtain permit coverage under the Construction General Permit, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would describe erosion and sediment controls, the means of waste disposal, and non-stormwater management controls. The General Plan also includes policies and actions to protect water quality in and around the planning area during project construction. Policy ES-7.3 requires new development and redevelopment projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design, stormwater treatment, stormwater infiltration, peak-flow reduction, and trash capture requirements. All new development and redevelopment projects are required to comply with City Municipal Code
Chapters 14.04.180 (Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater), 14.04.132 (Site Design Measures for Non-
regulated Projects), and 14.04.133 (Site Design and Stormwater Treatment Requirements for Regulated
Projects) to protect water quality during construction. In the event of groundwater dewatering, development projects would comply the appropriate NPDES permit requirements and City Municipal Code to ensure that impacts from the discharge of dewatered groundwater would be minimized. Construction impacts would be less than significant under project and cumulative conditions. As indicated in the General Plan EIR, new development could add impervious surfaces, which could increase the volume of pollutants associated with urban runoff. These pollutants can include sediments, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, fertilizers, and heavy metals. The General Plan includes policies and actions to protect water quality in and around the planning area. In addition, all new development and redevelopment projects would comply with the appropriate City Municipal Code to protect water quality, including Chapters 14.04.134 (LID Requirements), 14.04.180 (Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater), 14.04.132 (Site Design Measures for Non-regulated Projects), and 14.04.133 (Site Design and Stormwater Treatment Requirements for Regulated Projects). Future development would also be required to comply with the Clean Water Act and regulations enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Compliance with the City Municipal Code, General Plan policies, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) requirements would reduce surface water quality impacts associated with development under the General Plan to a less-than-significant level under project and cumulative conditions. The proposed project would be subject to the water quality control requirements identified above. Project design plans include the installation of bioretention ponds, flow-through planters, and Silva Cell units to provide low-impact development (LID) treatment on the project site. For the majority of the site, stormwater would be collected and treated with silva cells in the courtyard or bioretention areas along the east side of the project site. The storm drain would use bioretention areas to treat and control flows prior to discharge to the adjacent slough. With application of uniformly applied development standards and policies, the proposed project would have no peculiar impacts, no impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there is no substantial new information to indicate that an impact would be more severe than discussed in the
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-58 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
General Plan EIR. Therefore, the findings of the General Plan EIR related to impacts from conflicts with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements remain valid, and no further analysis is required. This impact would be less than significant.
3.10.1.2 Groundwater Supply and Recharge The analysis of impacts on groundwater supply and recharge is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HYD-2 (pages 3.9-31 to 3.9-33). The General Plan EIR indicated that the development of projects under the General Plan could lead to an increased demand for water. The water supply for South San Francisco is received from two providers: the Westborough Water District, which does not rely on groundwater sources, and the California Water Service (Cal Water), South San Francisco District, which has historically pumped groundwater from the Westside Basin to supplement the supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater has historically supplied 10 to 15 percent of the water demand from Cal Water’s South San Francisco District. Development under the General Plan could result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which could reduce infiltration and groundwater recharge. The General Plan includes policies and actions to maximize infiltration and rainwater retention and minimize impacts related to groundwater recharge. Specifically, all new development would comply with City Municipal Code Sections 14.04.134 (LID
Requirements), 14.04.132 (Site Design Measures for Non-regulated Projects), and 14.04.133 (Site Design
and Stormwater Treatment Requirements for Regulated Projects). The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant under project conditions and less than cumulatively considerable under cumulative conditions. No mitigation was required. The proposed project would not substantially change development patterns or areas with impermeable surfaces compared with those approved in the General Plan. The proposed project would decrease the site’s impervious surface area from 361,394 square feet (8.3 acres, or 95 percent of the site) to 344,378 (7.9 acres, or 91 percent of the site). Approximately 34,171 square feet (0.8 acre, or 9 percent of the site) would be covered by landscaped areas with native and adaptive vegetation as well as trees. Although dewatering is anticipated during construction activities, dewatering would be temporary, and impacts on the groundwater supply are not anticipated. Therefore, with application of uniformly applied development standards and policies, the proposed project would have no peculiar impacts, no impacts not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there is no substantial new information to indicate that an impact would be more severe than discussed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the findings of the General Plan EIR related to groundwater impacts remain valid, and no further analysis is required. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan, proposed project impacts on groundwater resources would be less than significant.
3.10.1.3 Drainage and Flooding As analyzed in Impact HYD-3 of the General Plan EIR (pages 3.9-33 to 3.9-37), earth-disturbing activities could result in erosion and increased stormwater runoff. Construction activities that disturb 1 or more acres of land surface would be subject to the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that describes erosion and sediment controls. In addition, City Municipal Code, City Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies require measures to ensure that stormwater will be managed and erosion and siltation will be reduced on- or off-site. New development or redevelopment allowed under the General Plan could increase the impervious area and thereby increase stormwater runoff. Increased stormwater runoff could result in flooding,
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-59 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities being exceeded, or additional sources of polluted runoff being created. However, compliance with General Plan policies and adherence to the requirements of the City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance would maximize on-site infiltration capacity for development and redevelopment projects and minimize off-site runoff from project sites. The majority of the planning area is not within a flood hazard zone. However, some areas are within the 100-year flood zone, including areas along Colma Creek, the navigable slough, San Bruno Creek, and San Francisco Bay. Development facilitated by the General Plan would occur within Federal Emergency Management Agency– (FEMA-) designated 100-year flood zones, which could affect flood flows.38 However, the General Plan and City Municipal Code include policies and actions specifically designed to address flood hazards, including sea-level rise. Furthermore, all new development would be elevated on appropriately anchored pilings or columns and secured so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structure of the lowest floor would be elevated to or above the base flood level. In addition, federal and State agencies are responsible for maintaining flood protection features in South San Francisco, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Chapter 14.04 of the City Municipal Code contains policies that seek to minimize impervious surfaces, minimize impacts from stormwater runoff, and adhere to LID requirements. Compliance with the requirements of City Municipal Code
Sections 14.04.134, 15.56.140, 15.56.170, 15.56.220, 20.300.007, and 20.310.002; the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program; and MS4 requirements, along with implementation of General Plan policies ES-2.1, ES-2.2, ES-3.3, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, CR-2.3, CR-2.5, CR-3.1, and CR-4.3, would reduce stormwater and flood impacts associated with development in the General Plan planning area to a less-than-significant level under project and cumulative conditions. Stormwater from the proposed project would be collected from different areas of the site and conveyed through pipes of various sizes. The proposed stormwater pipes would be between 6 and 24 inches in diameter. The proposed storm drainage system would have two discharge points; the site would utilize a 6-inch connection to the existing 15-inch storm drain main in Terminal Court in the north, and an existing 18-inch storm drain pipe outfall to the navigable slough would be utilized on the south end. For the majority of the site (Drainage Management Areas [DMAs] 1-7), stormwater would be collected and treated with silva cells in the courtyard or bioretention areas along the east side of the project site, and conveyed through 24-inch conveyance pipes that have been upsized for extra storage. Stormwater would ultimately outfall to the navigable slough south of the project site through an existing 18-inch pipe. A replaced connection would also be made to the existing 15-inch storm drain main in Terminal Court to convey the smaller DMA 8 to the drainage system. Both outfalls on the north and south side of the project site would be designed to maintain an equal or less discharge flow compared to existing flow conditions. The proposed project would also include on-site storm drain improvements such as bioretention ponds, flow-through planters, and Silva Cell units to provide LID treatment throughout the project site. LID treatment would be used to treat stormwater, control flows, and improve drainage. The bioretention areas and the storm drain system pipes would provide additional stormwater storage. Implementation of engineered controls, such as biomix soil and drain rock systems, would allow stormwater to be filtered and stored, thereby providing stormwater management and partial flood control on the project site as well. These controls would promote evapotranspiration and mimic flows in areas with more permeable space. In addition, for portions of the project site that would 38 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (FIRM panels 06081C0043F and 06081C0044F). Effective April 5.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-60 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
drain to the existing 15-inch storm drain main in Terminal Court, the use of permeable spaces would be maximized to keep the proposed flows below the levels of existing flows. For most of the site, the storm drainage system would comprise bioretention areas, which would treat and control flows prior to discharge to the adjacent slough. The City owns and maintains the storm drainage infrastructure within public rights-of-way. These facilities discharge to San Mateo County flood control facilities. To ensure that proposed buildings would be protected from flooding, first-floor elevations would be raised to at least 13 feet. Fill would be placed to raise existing grades at least 4 feet, allowing structures to meet the natural grade at or above an elevation of 14 feet. As a result, the entire structure would be outside of the floodplain. To comply with FEMA requirements and combat future sea-level rise, the site would be raised to an elevation of 13 feet or more, and structures would be designed with first-floor elevations of 14 feet or more. A flood-proofing certificate would be submitted to the City, and the property would have flood insurance.39 Therefore, with application of uniformly applied development standards and policies, the proposed project would have no peculiar impacts, no impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the General Plan. Furthermore, there is no substantial new information to indicate that an impact would be more severe than discussed in the General Plan EIR. The findings of the General Plan EIR related to stormwater and floodflow impacts remain valid, and no further analysis is required. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan, proposed project impacts would be less than significant.
3.10.1.4 Pollutant Release Due to Project Inundation The analysis of impacts related to pollutant release due to project inundation is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HYD-4 (pages 3.9-38 to 3.9-40). As described in General Plan EIR, seiche would not be expected to affect areas developed as part of the General Plan. Portions of the city that are in low-lying areas on the east side, adjacent to San Francisco Bay, are susceptible to inundation from a tsunami. Development facilitated by the General Plan could be located within a tsunami inundation area and risk inundation in the event of a tsunami. Some areas of the General Plan planning area are within the 100-year flood zone, including areas along Colma Creek, the navigable slough, San Bruno Creek, and San Francisco Bay. Projected sea-level rise and coastal flooding are expected by 2100 along the coast of South San Francisco. In addition to the identified policies and actions that address flood hazards, the General Plan contains policies and actions to address sea-level rise. Compliance with General Plan Policy CR-2.2; Actions CR-2.2.1, CR-2.2.2, LU-6.6.1, and CHEJ-4.1.2; and City Municipal Code Chapter 15.56 (Flood Damage Prevention), Sections 15.56.140,
15.56.160, 15.56.220, and 20.180.005, would reduce flood hazards and sea-level rise impacts associated with development in the General Plan planning area. Furthermore, development under the General Plan would comply with mandatory federal, State, and local regulations governing the storage and use of hazardous materials, ensuring appropriate containment to prevent spills. The General Plan EIR concludes that impacts related to a release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant. A portion of the project site is within FEMA Zone X, an area with a 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood hazard. The remaining area on the project site is within the FEMA 100-year flood plain (Zone AE, elevation 10 feet).40 The proposed project would be subject to the flood 39 Schaaf & Wheeler. 2022. Terminal 101 Sea Level Rise Design Considerations Memorandum. November 7. 40 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (FIRM panels 06081C0043F and 06081C0044F). Effective April 5.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-61 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
management requirements identified in General Plan Policy CR-2.2 and City Municipal Code Sections
15.56.140, 15.56.160, and 20.180.005, which would reduce flood hazards. Furthermore, water quality control and drainage features, such as bioretention basins and Silva Cell units, would reduce pollutant releases and control flows. The proposed project would not exacerbate the likelihood for inundation by a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. Therefore, there are no peculiar impacts, no impacts not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there is no substantial new information to indicate that an impact would be more severe than discussed in the General Plan EIR. The findings of the General Plan EIR related to impacts from a release of pollutants due to project inundation remain valid, and no further analysis is required. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan, proposed project impacts would be less than significant.
3.10.1.5 Conflict or Obstruct a Water Resource Management Plan The analysis of impacts related to conflicts or obstruction of a water resource management plan is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact HYD-5 (pages 3.9-40 to 3.9-41). As described in General Plan EIR, construction and operation of development under the General Plan would be required to comply with the Clean Water Act, General Plan policies and actions, the City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance, and mandatory NPDES permit requirements. As a result, future development under the General Plan would not substantially degrade water quality, in compliance with the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan. Although development under the General Plan could lead to an increase in water demand, along with increased groundwater pumping, the groundwater supply is expected to be completely reliable in all water year types through 2045. The General Plan contains several policies and actions that would facilitate groundwater recharge by encouraging pervious surfaces in new developments and requiring projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including stormwater infiltration requirements. The General Plan EIR concludes that impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant. The proposed project would comply with the appropriate water quality objectives for the region. Commonly practiced BMPs would be implemented to control construction site runoff and reduce the discharge of pollutants from stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff to storm drain systems. As part of compliance with permit requirements during ground-disturbing or construction activities, implementation of water quality control measures and BMPs would 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 Water Quality Control Plan. The Construction General Permit also requires stormwater discharges not to contain pollutants that cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. In addition, implementing the appropriate General Plan policies would require the protection of groundwater recharge areas and groundwater resources, as required by a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, there are no peculiar impacts, no impacts not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, there is no substantial new information to indicate that an impact would be more severe than discussed in the General Plan EIR. The findings of the General Plan EIR related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan remain valid, and no further analysis is required. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan, proposed project impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-62 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.10.1.6 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on hydrology and water is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.9-41 through 3.9-42. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Colma, Daly City, San Bruno, and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County, could result in a cumulatively significant impact on hydrology and water quality. However, with adherence to the General Plan policies and actions, the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, and standards of each applicable jurisdiction, as well as State and regional regulations governing water quality, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the project. The Infinite 131 project would be required to go through environmental and regulatory review and comply with the City’s LID measures, Construction General Plan and SWPPP requirements, and have a site-specific investigation performed, which would provide design recommendations to reduce the project’s impacts. In addition, the Infinite 131 project would also be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions, City Municipal Code, and Zoning Ordinance requirements, as well as State and regional regulations governing water quality. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative hydrology and water quality impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.10.2 Conclusion With regard to Hydrology and Water Quality, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-63 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Impact LUP-1, pp. 3.10-15 to-17 No No No No Yes
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LUP-2, pp. 3.10-18 to-21 No No No No Yes
3.11.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to land use and planning has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, of the General Plan EIR. The analysis of impacts related to land use and planning are included in the General Plan EIR as Impact LU-1 (pages 3.10-15 to 3.10-17) and LU-2 (pages 3.10-18 to 3.10-21). The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would support the integration of community uses and accessibility throughout South San Francisco and would not physically divide an established community; this impact would be less than significant. Althouth implementation of the General Plan would entail adopting new standards, the General Plan EIR determined that the standards would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect; this impact would be less than significant. The proposed project would be located in an area with a Business Technology Park High (BTP-H) land use designation, which has a base maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5, with permitted increases of up to 2.0 for uses such as R&D facilities or developments meeting specific TDM, off-site improvement, or design standards. The proposed project would construct approximately 696,343 sf of R&D and amenity space, resulting in a project FAR of 1.8, or approximately 8.9 percent41 of the new square footage projected for General Plan build-out within the BTP-H designation.42 The proposed project would thus be consistent with the permitted FAR allowed for this designation, with specific exceptions. It would also be consistent with the analysis of the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, the proposed project would remain consistent with the General Plan and City Zoning Ordinance. 41 696,343 × 100 = 69,634,300; 69,634,300/7,788,187 = 8.94 42 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 2-15.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-64 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the project is located within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, as well as the SFO Land Use Compatibility Plan zone 3. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area is an approximately 400-acre area in the central southern portion of the city between U.S. 101 and South Spruce Avenue, adjacent to the Downtown Sub-Area. It comprises of largely industrial, business, food processing, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. According to the General Plan, the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area aims to preserve small businesses and industrial uses while strengthening its economic base, which includes a large number of small businesses and a high share of area jobs, by retaining a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses.2 To support development and use in this area, the General Plan includes policies that encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, such as encouraging redevelopment of older or marginal industrial areas, maintaining vehicle infrastructure and improving circulation, improving the pedestrian and bicycle network to facilitate access to other areas of the city, enhancing the appearance of the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements, and improving the buffering between industrial areas in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The General Plan’s Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. By increaseing the density of development and use at this site for R&D, it supports the Sub-Area goals. As addresed in the General Plan, the project site is approximately 1 mile northwest of SFO and partially within Zone 3 of the ALUCP, which includes noise, height/airspace protection, safety, and overflight compatibility criteria and policies, as outlined in the SFO ALUCP. Please refer to Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 3.13, Noise and Vibration, for additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with the SFO ALUCP. Consistent with the General Plan EIR findings, the project would require a determination of consistency with the ALUCP. The project would also be required to comply with FAA regulations for height. This includes determining the need to file form 7460-I, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. With the 7460-I filing, the FAA undertakes an aeronautical study of the project and determines whether to issue a Determination of No Hazard or a Determination of Hazard. Consistent with the General Plan EIR findings, the project would require an ALUCP consistency determination to comply with FAA regulations for height. The Project Applicant would be required to receive a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation as a condition of approval for a building permit for the proposed project. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Project Description, the southern portion of the project site is adjacent to the navigable slough; it contains a portion of the 100-foot shoreline band within the jurisidiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Consistent with the General Plan EIR findings, because a portion of the project site is within 100 feet of the navigable slough, project-related work within the 100-foot shoreline band would be subject to the McAteer-Petris Act, thereby requiring a permit from BCDC. The McAteer-Petris Act allows BCDC to issue or deny permits for work that would place flll, extract material, or change the use of any land, water, or structure within the area of its jurisidiction, in conformance with San Francisco Bay Plan policies and McAteer-Petris Act requirements. The permit would be reviewed and approved by BCDC to ensure that the proposed project, as well as all project-related activities within the shoreline band, would be consistent with the requirements of the San Francisco Bay Plan and McAteer-Petris Act. The Project Applicant would be required to secure a BCDC permit as a condition of approval for the proposed project’s building permit. Furthermore, the Active South City Plan, General Plan, and Lindenville Specific Plan, identify a Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail crossing of U.S.-101 to connect the Bay Trail with Shaw Road, with an eventual extension to the Centennial Way Trail via a
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-65 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
grade separated crossing of Caltrain. The proposed project would allocate an approximately 5-foot easement for a bicycle and pedestrian path along the navigable slough and Shaw Road driveway on the southern portion of the project site between Shaw Road and U.S. 101. Although no bicycle and pedestrian pathway is proposed here as part of the project, the easement would not preclude completion of the path, as well as the bicycle and pedestrian bridge across U.S. 101, consistent with General Plan Policy MOB-2.1.3 and as identified in the Active South City Plan. Such pedestrian and bicyclist improvements, if pursued, would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the future. However, these improvements are not evaluated as part of the proposed project. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Furthermore, it would not result in a new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to land use compared to the conclusions reached in the General Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
3.11.1.1 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on land use and planning is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.10-21 through 3.10-22. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with San Mateo County, could result in significant impacts related to land use and planning. However, most development under the General Plan would take place in urbanized areas as infill development and not require significant land use changes that would create land use conflicts, nor would they divide existing communities. In addition, future development would be subject to the land use plans, policies, and regulations of the applicable jurisdiction. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. 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, similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be constructed on an infill site and would not divide an established community. Rather, consistent with current urban design practice in South San Francisco, designs would aim to enhance connectivity. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to land use and planning. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-66 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.11.2 Conclusion With regard to Land Use and Planning, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-67 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.12 Mineral Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
12. MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
6.2.2, Mineral Resources, pp. 6-2
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
6.2.2, Mineral Resources, pp. 6-2
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3.12.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to mineral resources has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 6.2, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, of the General Plan EIR. The analysis of impacts on mineral resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Section 6.2.2 (page 6-2). No impacts to mineral resources were identified in the General Plan EIR because there are no mineral resource recovery sites within South San Francisco boundaries. Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the California Geological Survey is responsible for classifying land as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. According to available data, the majority of South San Francisco, including the project site, have been classified as MRZ-1. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, defines MRZ-1 as follows:
MRZ-1: Areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. This zone is applied where well-developed lines of reasoning, based on economic/-geologic principles and adequate data, indicate that the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral deposits is nil or slight. Therefore, the project site is not underlain by any known significant mineral deposits, nor is the surrounding area known to support significant mineral resources of any type. Furthermore, no mineral resource recovery sites are located within South San Francisco, as delineated in the General Plan. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan, the proposed project would have
no impact on mineral resources. Because the proposed project would have no impact, it would have no potential to contribute to cumulative impacts, resulting in no cumulative impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-68 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.12.2 Conclusion With regard to Mineral Resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-69 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.13 Noise and Vibration
Environmental Issue Area
Where In GP EIR is this Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact to the Project site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant effect in GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
13. NOISE:
Would the project: a) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-1, pp. 3.11-24 to 3.11-32
No No No No Yes
b) Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Impact NOI-2, pp. 3.11-32 to 3.11-34
No No No No Yes
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact NOI-3, pp. 3.11-34 to 3.11-36
No No No No Yes
3.13.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to noise and vibration has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.11, Noise and Vibration, of the General Plan EIR. To supplement the environmental setting discussion in the General Plan EIR, a noise monitoring survey was conducted at locations near the project site. Noise levels were measured for a duration of approximately 24 hours at five sites (i.e., long-term measurements) and for a duration of 15 minutes at four sites (i.e., short-term measurements). Long-term noise levels ranged from approximately 70 to 77 A-weighted decibels (dBA), day-night average sound level (Ldn), and short-term noise levels ranged from approximately 58 to 73 dBA, equivalent sound level (Leq). Appendix I,
Noise Technical Report, presents the complete data measured during the noise survey and describes the survey methodology and locations for the measurement sites.
3.13.1.1 Construction Noise The analysis of impacts related to the generation of noise is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact NOI-1 (pages 3.11-25 to 3.11-32). The General Plan EIR concluded that construction of future development in South San Francisco would generate construction noise, the impact of which would be less than significant because construction activities would need to comply with the mandatory requirements of the City Municipal Code and General Plan. The City Municipal Code regulates when construction activities can occur but allows for exemptions in certain instances,
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-70 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
which need to be approved by the City Manager. In addition, Policy 1-2 in the General Plan requires adherence to the allowable hours for construction and consideration of the use of temporary sound walls surrounding construction sites. The proposed project would result in the development of land uses that would be generally consistent with the land uses analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, it is likely that the project’s construction impacts would be similar to the construction impacts indicated in the General Plan EIR. To evaluate noise levels from construction of the proposed project, a noise technical report (Appendix I) was prepared. It includes modeled noise levels that used reference noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model, the Federal Transit Administration “general assessment” construction noise analysis method, and information provided by the Project Sponsor.43,44 Construction is allowed during daytime hours if noise from each individual piece of equipment is limited to 90 decibels (dB) at a distance of 25 feet or if combined construction noise does not exceed 90 dB at any point outside of the property plane of the proposed project. In the noise technical report (Appendix I), Table 6-2 demonstrates that noise levels from each individual piece of equipment proposed for the project would not exceed 90 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. For that reason, construction that takes place during daytime hours would not conflict with the City’s construction noise regulation for individual pieces of equipment. Combined construction noise from multiple pieces of equipment is assessed by modeling the combined noise level from the three loudest pieces of equipment used during each phase of construction. Table 6-3 in the noise technical report presents the combined noise levels for each phase of construction, with noise ranging from 76 to 84 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. At the nearest noise-sensitive land use, which is 230 feet from the project site, noise from construction would attenuate geometrically over the 230-foot distance. The noise levels at the nearest sensitive land uses are presented in Table 6-4 of the noise technical report. As concluded in the noise technical report, project construction would result in an increase in noise 2.2 dBA compared with the daytime ambient noise level at the nearest sensitive land use. Other analyzed sensitive land uses are located farther away, and project construction noise would be below the ambient noise levels at those land uses. Consequently, the proposed project would result in noise that would not be considered substantial at the nearest sensitive land use because the increase compared with the ambient noise level would be less than 3 dB, which is the limit of what is considered perceptible by humans (see Table 6-4 of the noise technical report) and, therefore, less than what is typically considered perceptible. Certain activities may occur during nighttime and early-morning hours, including concrete pours, work involving cranes and/or large equipment (e.g., drills), and interior building work. These activities require separate evaluation. Concrete pours would occur between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. and between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Crane work, including drilling, may start as early as 5:00 a.m. 43 Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. Accessed: February 17, 2023. 44 Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA Report No. 0123. September. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/ 118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: February 17, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-71 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Nighttime construction activities would need to comply with the applicable noise standard from the City Municipal Code (i.e., 55 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. for transient lodging, such as the motel located 230 feet from the project site). This standard applies unless the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the criterion. If measured ambient noise levels are higher than the standard, generated noise levels may exceed measured ambient noise levels by up to 5 dB. Modeling for early-morning and nighttime construction activities was conducted to estimate the combined noise level by activity at the nearby noise-sensitive land use. These activities could require the use of two cranes operating simultaneously, two drills operating simultaneously, and two concrete pumps operating simultaneously. The noise technical report, Table 6-5, shows estimated noise levels for nighttime activities, which, at the nearest sensitive land use, would range from 62 to 66 dBA Leq. As concluded in the noise technical report, these noise levels would be below the applicable threshold at this location (i.e., 68 dBA), based on the noise measurement survey. At other sensitive land uses located farther from the project site, similarly, construction noise levels would be below the applicable thresholds. The use of trucks to haul materials to and from the construction site has also been evaluated. As concluded in the noise technical report, noise from construction haul trucks would result in an increase of less than 3 dB on most roadway segments, which is the limit of what is considered perceptible by humans. On five roadway segments, construction haul trucks would result in a noise increase of more than 3 dB; however, in all instances, the measured noise levels on these segments was greater than the modeled noise level, inclusive of noise from construction haul trucks. As such, noise from construction haul trucks would not result in a meaningful increase in noise on roadways where the increase would be more than a 3 dB because such noise from roadways would be influenced by other noise sources (i.e., noise from U.S. 101). Thus, construction haul trucks would not result in a substantial noise increase. Overall, construction of the proposed project would not result in noise that would be considered substantial at noise-sensitive land uses, either during daytime or nighttime hours. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion from the General Plan EIR, which found that impacts from construction noise associated with future development would be less than significant.
3.13.1.2 Operational Noise The General Plan EIR determined that future development would increase vehicle volumes in South San Francisco, which would lead to a maximum increase in traffic noise of 1.7 dBA on Grand Avenue (between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard) relative to build-out conditions without the General Plan. That increase in traffic noise would not be perceptible; therefore, the impact of traffic noise was found to be less than significant. With respect to stationary sources of noise, the General Plan EIR found that impacts would be less than significant, with mitigation requiring preparation of a noise study to identify design measures. The General Plan EIR concluded that both parking lot activities, such as truck loading and unloading, and mechanical equipment at future development could exceed the City’s noise performance thresholds where development is built adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses. Impacts from parking lot activities and mechanical equipment would be reduced through an operational noise reduction plan; therefore, the General Plan EIR found impacts from stationary sources of noise to be less than significant with mitigation. Similarly, cumulative impacts for this topic would not be cumulatively
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-72 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
considerable because cumulative development would be required to comply with existing planning regulations regarding noise. The General Plan’s incremental contribution would be less than significant. For the proposed project’s traffic-related noise, the noise technical report found that, on nearly all roadway segments, project-related traffic would result in noise increases of less than 3 dB, which is the limit of what is considered perceptible by humans (see Table 6-8 of the noise technical report). On one roadway segment, the increase in project-related traffic noise would be approximately 7 dB, which would be perceptible for a hypothetical single roadway in isolation. However, the roadway segment that would experience the 7 dB increase would be near U.S. 101; therefore, the noise environment at that segment would be dominated by freeway noise. Measured noise in that area was determined to be almost 15 dB louder than the modeled noise level, inclusive of project-related traffic increases and existing traffic. With a 15 dB noise differential, the louder noise (i.e. U.S. 101) dominates, and the quieter noise (project-related traffic plus existing traffic) is not perceptible. Consequently, project-related traffic noise would not result in perceptible changes in noise at any roadway segment. The impact would be less than significant, which is consistent with the conclusion from the General Plan EIR. With respect to the proposed project’s stationary sources of noise, which would include HVAC-related equipment such as boilers, chillers, cooling towers, pumps, air handling units, and exhaust fans, the noise technical report determined that combined noise from equipment could result in a noise level of 81.5 dB at a distance of 50 feet. The proposed project would also require emergency generators, which could result in noise levels of 89 to 104 dBA at 50 feet, depending on the size of the generator. Noise from the HVAC-related equipment, as modeled in the noise technical report, would increase noise levels at the nearest sensitive land uses by less than the allowable threshold of 5 dB compared with ambient levels. Unattenuated emergency generator noise, however, could result in noise levels at the nearest sensitive land uses that would exceed the threshold of 5 dB compared with ambient levels. The noise technical report concludes that attenuation measures to reduce generator noise and adherence to the City Municipal Code would be required before buildings permits would be issued for the proposed project. As such, the project applicant would need to document that generator noise would be reduced to comply with the City Municipal Code before permits would be issued. The increase in noise from this equipment would not be considered substantial. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. For the proposed project’s parking garage noise, the noise technical report determined that 1,000 cars in a peak activity hour would generate a sound equivalent level of 92 dBA at 50 feet, which can be converted to an hourly Leq (average) noise level of 56.4 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Conservatively assuming 1,000 vehicles would be using the 1,025-space garage at once, parking garage noise at a distance of 260 feet (the distance from the garage to the nearest hotel) would be approximately 42 dBA Leq, which would be well below the measured ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive land use. Therefore, although the proposed project would result in development similar to that under the General Plan, there are no sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.
3.13.1.3 Ground-borne Vibration The analysis of impacts related to ground-borne vibration is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact NOI-2 (pages 3.11-32 to 3.11-34). The General Plan EIR concluded that construction activities associated with building future development could cause vibration that would exceed
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-73 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
applicable damage thresholds for existing buildings. Policies NOI 2.1 and NOI 3.1 in the General Plan require vibration impact analysis when construction occurs within 100 feet of sensitive land uses or within 150 feet of historic structures, respectively. These two policies are applied to all construction permits; therefore, compliance with the policies is mandatory and monitored by the City. As such, construction activities associated with future development would comply with these policies. The General Plan EIR concluded that vibration impacts from construction would be less than significant. Operational vibration impacts would be potentially significant because new sensitive land uses could be constructed near existing railroad tracks. The General Plan EIR found that compliance with Policy NOI-2.2, which requires a vibration impact analysis for new development within 200 feet of railroad tracks, would result in less-than-significant impacts. The nearest off-site structures to the project site are the produce market buildings west of the site. The closest of these structures is approximately 60 feet west of the project site. Conservatively assuming that a drill or excavator could be used anywhere on the project site, the vibration level from an auger drill rig or an excavator at the closest structure (i.e., at a distance of 60 feet) would have a peak particle velocity (PPV) of approximately 0.024 inch per second (in/sec). This type of equipment would be similar to the type of equipment that would be used to construct future development associated with the General Plan. The produce market buildings, along with many of the surrounding structures, would be categorized as Historic and Some Old Buildings which have a PPV damage criterion of 0.25 in/sec.45 Because the estimated vibration level from an auger drill rig or an excavator at 60 feet would be below the applicable criterion, vibration-related damage would not be expected to occur at the structures. Furthermore, vibration levels at similar buildings located more than 60 feet from the project site would be even lower. Vibration-related damage would not be expected to occur at these other buildings. Similarly, vibration from the auger drill rig would result in vibration at the nearest sensitive land use, 230 feet from the site, that would be well below the level that is considered strongly perceptible. As such, the proposed project would not cause excessive vibration at the nearest sensitive land uses because vibration would not be strongly perceptible and thus not likely to cause annoyance. Because the estimated vibration levels at all nearby structures would be below the applicable damage and annoyance criteria, vibration-related impacts from the proposed project would not be considered substantial. As the proposed project would result in development similar to that under the General Plan, and because construction-related vibration effects for the project were determined not to be substantial, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.
3.13.1.4 Airport Noise The analysis of impacts related to airport noise is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact NOI-3 (pages 3.11-34 to 3.11-36). The General Plan EIR concluded that airport-related impacts could be potentially significant because the General Plan would introduce new noise-sensitive land uses into an area affected by aircraft noise. The General Plan would not worsen the aircraft noise impact experienced by existing land uses, however. Mitigation that requires a noise study to identify design measures to minimize aircraft noise in new development would reduce the impact to less than significant. 45 California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Final. CT-HWANP-RT-20-365.01.01. April. Sacramento, CA. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: February 14, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-74 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
The closest airport to the project site is SFO, which is approximately 1 mile to the southeast. Portions of the project site fall within the 65 dBA noise contour for this airport, according to the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Environs of San Francisco
International Airport; however, no portion of the project site is within the 70 or 75 dBA “community noise equivalent level” noise contours.46 The 2012 ALUCP designates commercial and industrial/production land uses as compatible with all airport-related noise levels, according to Table IV-1, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria, of the ALUCP document.47 Because the proposed project’s land uses would be commercial, office, and/or R&D uses, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use restrictions for the 65 dBA noise contour in the ALUCP. Consequently, unlike the General Plan, which would include new noise-sensitive land uses, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of noise-sensitive land uses to incompatible aircraft noise levels. Therefore, impacts associated with airport noise and consistency with airport land use plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
3.13.1.5 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on noise is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.11-36 through 3.11-37. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno and Millbrae, could result in significant cumulative impacts related to noise. However, with adherence to noise regulations and policies identified in the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan, including mitigation measures, as well as standards of each applicable jurisdiction, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar noise impacts as the project. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with applicable noise regulations and policies identified in the analysis above within the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan, including mitigation measures, to reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to noise. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant.
46 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November. Redwood City, CA. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: March 10, 2023. 47 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-75 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.13.2 Conclusion With regard to Noise, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-76 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.14 Population and Housing
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Would the project: a) 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)?
Impact POP-1, pp. 3.12-19 to 3.12-21
No No No No Yes
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact POP-2, pp. 3.12-21 to 3.12-22
No No No No Yes
3.14.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to population and housing has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.12, Population, Housing, and
Employment, of the General Plan EIR. The analysis of impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact POP-1 (pages 3.12-19 to 3.12-21). The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan, by virtue of being itself a long-range blueprint for growth and development in South San Francisco, would not lead to unplanned housing or employment growth. Build-out under the General Plan would therefore be considered planned growth. The General Plan EIR noted that South San Francisco is already served by infrastructure (e.g., roads, freeways, railroads, along with infrastructure for transit, water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas); therefore, build-out under the General Plan would not extend infrastructure in a way that would lead to indirect growth. Impacts related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, were determined to be less than significant.48 The analysis of impacts related to the displacement of people or housing is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact POP-2 (pages 3.12-21 to 3.12-22). The General Plan EIR also determined that build-out under the General Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating construction elsewhere. The General Plan includes policies and actions to prevent displacement, such as Policy LU-3.7, which requires no net loss in residential units during reconstruction or renovation. The City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance also include specific provisions that address the location, design, and renovation of housing units. Development applications would be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with policies and actions of the 48 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.12-21.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-77 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
General Plan, as well as other applicable codes and ordinances, and prevent the displacement of housing from occurring. Therefore, impacts related to the displacement of people or housing units were determined to be less than significant.49 The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to population and housing. The cumulative context is the nine-county Bay Area region. Because each county is required to develop land use plans to accommodate future population projections, and because the General Plan would do likewise, a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact would not result.50 The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR. It would be located within an area with a BTP-H land use designation and consistent with the permitted FAR allowed with this designation or with specific exceptions. No housing units are included in the proposed project. The proposed project would construct approximately 696,343 gsf of R&D and amenity space, which would account for approximately 8.9 percent51 of the new square footage projected under General Plan build-out within the BTP-H designation.52 Operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 1,548 employees,53 which would account for approximately 3.7 percent54 of the net new employees planned for under the General Plan. The project site is connected to infrastructure; therefore, the proposed project would not need to extend infrastructure that could result in unplanned growth. The proposed project would demolish a small garage, pay booth, and surface parking lot, but no housing units would be demolished and no residents displaced as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to unplanned population growth or the displacement of people.
3.14.1.1 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on population and housing is included in the General Plan EIR on page 3.12-23. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in the nine Bay Area counties, would result in increased population and housing growth. However, population and housing growth as a result of build-out of the General Plan would be consistent with the growth envisioned and projected by ABAG and Plan Bay Area. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal 49 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.12-22. 50 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 3.12-23. 51 696,343 * 100 = 69,634,300;69,634,300/7,788,187 = 8.94 52 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Pg. 2-15. 53 696,343 sf/one employee per 450 square feet = 1,548 employees 54 1,548 × 100 = 165,100; 154,800/42,247 = 3.7
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-78 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, Infinite 131 would most likely have similar population and housing impacts as the project. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project does not propose any new housing units and would not directly induce population growth, and thereby would not increase the residential population surrounding the project site. In addition, the Infinite 131 project would also be an infill project and would connect to existing infrastructure that already serves the project site and would not need to extend infrastructure that could result in unplanned growth. Furthermore, the Infinite 131 project site does not currently contain any residential uses, and no housing units would be demolished and no residents displaced as a result of the project. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to population and housing. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant
3.14.2 Conclusion With regard to Population and Housing, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-79 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.15 Public Services
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
15. PUBLIC SERVICES:
Would the project: a) 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:
• Fire protection?
• Police protection?
• Schools?
• Parks?
• Other public facilities?
Impact PUB-1 through PUB-5, pp. 3.13-22 to 3.13-29
No No No No Yes
3.15.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to public services has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR.
3.15.1.1 Fire Protection, Police Projection, and Emergency Medical
Response Services The analysis of impacts on fire protection, police protection, and emergency response services is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact PUB-1 and PUB-2 (pages 3.13-22 to 3.13-26). The General Plan EIR determined that development under the plan would result in additional residential and nonresidential development throughout the city that could result in potential environmental effects related to public service facilities. Development and growth under the General Plan would increase demand for fire protection, police protection, and emergency services, which could result in the need to expand existing facilities, hire more personnel, or require the construction of new public service facilities, which could result in environmental impacts. However, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that fire protection, police protection, and emergency services are able to accommodate demand generated from new development under the General Plan. Specifically, Policy SA-16.4 requires the City to coordinate with the SSFFD and SSFPD to ensure that public services can accommodate the growth associated with new development in the area east of U.S. 101, and Policy SA-22.7 requires the City to coordinate with the SSFFD and SSFPD to ensure that
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-80 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
public services can accommodate the growth associated with new development in Lindenville. In addition, all development projects in South San Francisco would be required to pay the public safety impact fee in accordance with Chapter 8.75 of the City Municipal Code to provide funds to ensure there would be adequate personnel, equipment, and facilities to meet increased demand generated by new development. Any new development would be subject to payment of the public safety impact fee and reviewed by the City for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan, the City Municipal Code, and relevant mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR; therefore, the physical effects on the environment from the construction of new or expanded public service facilities would be less than significant. The proposed project would construct new R&D and amenity buildings on the project site, which is already developed and currently being served by the SSFFD and SSFPD. As described in Chapter 2,
Project Description, dedicated access to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided via Terminal Court and the Shaw Road connection. The proposed project would allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings through the proposed roadway network within the project site. The project site would include 20- to 26-foot-wide fire lanes around the perimeter of the project site, providing access to each building. Most fire lanes would be within a 200-foot hose-pull distance of all first-floor exterior walls, unless an alternate compliance strategy is authorized by the local fire jurisdiction. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable fire and safety codes required in the City’s Municipal Code. Further, the proposed project would be subject to the public safety impact fee, which would support public services personnel, equipment, and facility maintenance to offset potential impacts from additional demand generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, and the impact would be less than significant.
3.15.1.2 Schools The analysis of impacts on schools is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact PUB-3 (pages 3.13-26 to 3.13-27). Development and growth in South San Francisco would increase the demand for public school facilities within the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) as a result of increased student enrollment, which could result in the need to expand existing facilities or hire more personnel. However, as detailed in the General Plan EIR, build-out of the General Plan would occur over time, and the incremental increase in staffing and equipment needed to accommodate increased student enrollment over time, would not result in significant environmental impacts. The General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that public schools would keep pace with additional demand generated by new development. Specifically, Policy SA-16.4 requires the City to coordinate with the SSFUSD to ensure that public services can accommodate the growth associated with new development in the area east of U.S. 101. Policy SA-22.7 requires the City to coordinate with the SSFUSD to ensure that public services can accommodate the growth associated with new development in Lindenville. In addition, all development projects in South San Francisco would be required to pay the school impact fee in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 50 to provide funds to SSFUSD. Any new development would be subject to payment of the school impact fee and reviewed by the City for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan, the City Municipal Code, and relevant mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR; therefore, the physical effects on the environment from the construction of new or expanded public school facilities would be less than significant. Since the proposed project would include the development of R&D/amenity uses, and not residential uses, it would not directly result in the generation of new students who would enroll in the SSFUSD. However, the proposed project would be subject to SB 50 school impact fees, as
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-81 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
established by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. These fees support facility maintenance to offset potential impacts from additional use. Section 65996 of the State Government Code notes that payment of the school impact fees established by SB 50, which may be required by any state or local agency, is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, and the impact would be less than significant.
3.15.1.3 Libraries The analysis of impacts on libraries is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact PUB-4 (pages 3.13-27 to 3.13-29). Development and growth as envisioned under build-out of the General Plan would increase the demand for library facilities. The new library at the Community Civic Campus would be able to accommodate some of the increased demand from this growth, however, it is possible that there would be an additional need to increase library facilities and staff to accommodate the demand. However, the General Plan also includes policies and actions to ensure that library facilities keep pace with new development. These policies include Policy LU-1.4, which requires the City to maintain and expand public facilities that support the community, including libraries, particularly in neighborhoods that lack such resources, and Policy ECS-7.1, which requires the City to ensure that adequate library services, staffing levels, and facilities are maintained for all residents. In addition, Policy ECS-7.7 requires the City to develop customer service surveys, which will be used to evaluate library programs and events. In addition, all development projects in South San Francisco would be required to pay the library impact fee in accordance with Chapter 8.74 of the City Municipal Code to provide funds for the City’s library services and facilities. Any new development would be subject to payment of the library impact fee and reviewed by the City for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan, the City Municipal Code, and relevant mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR; therefore, the physical effects on the environment from the construction of new or expanded library facilities would be less than significant. Development facilitated by the General Plan would be required to pay library impact fees, in accordance with Chapter 8.74 of the City Municipal Code; therefore, future development under the General Plan would not result in significant adverse effects related to library facilities. The impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR.
3.15.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on public services is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.13-32 through 3.13-35. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, would result in growth that could increase demand on public services. However, with adherence to the General Plan policies and actions, and the City Municipal Code (including payment of impact fees), cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-82 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, Infinite 131 would most likely have similar public services impacts as the project. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be subject to a SSFUSD development impact fee based on the square footage of each project. In addition, the Infinite 131 project would be subject to payment of the public safety impact fee and library impact fee. Furthermore, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with the same policies and actions provided in the General Plan, and described above, which would ensure that public service providers are able to accommodate growth generated by new development. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.15.2 Conclusion With regard to Public Services, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-83 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.16 Recreation
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
16. RECREATION:
Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Impact REC-1, pp. 13.13-30 to 13.13-31
No No No No Yes
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact REC-2, pp. 13.13-31 to13.13-32
No No No No Yes
3.16.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to recreation has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan Draft EIR. The analysis of impacts on recreational resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact REC-1 and REC-2 (pages 3.13-30 to 3.13-32). The General Plan EIR determined that development under the plan would result in additional residential and nonresidential development throughout the planning area and potentially private and public improvements throughout the city with the potential for environmental effects related to recreational facilities. The General Plan assumes that new parks and recreational facilities would be built to assist the City in meeting park service standards. Specifically, the plan includes policies and actions to ensure that park and recreational facilities keep pace with new development, and that new parks and open spaces are created in the area east of U.S. 101. Theses General Plan policies and actions include, but are not limited to, Policies SA-16.3, PR 1-.4, PR-1.5, PR-3.3, PR-4.6, PR-5.2, and Action SA-31.1.1. The General Plan EIR concluded that with compliance with policies and actions under the General Plan, and payment of the parks and recreation impact fees in accordance with Chapter 8.67 of the City Municipal Code, new development under the General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact related to recreational resources. The proposed project would include a central courtyard that would cover approximately 38,000 square feet, be accessible to the public, and provide space for outdoor work, recreation, and socializing through its use of seat walls, paved areas, turf, and shade structures. In addition, outdoor terraces would be incorporated on multiple levels of the proposed buildings for use by the building tenants. Further, any development under the General Plan, including the proposed project, would be reviewed by the City for compliance with policies and actions of the General Plan, ensuring that
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-84 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
parks and recreational facilities would keep pace with new development. Furthermore, development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to pay park and recreation impact fees in accordance with Chapter 8.67 of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project and other future development under the General Plan would not result in significant adverse effects related to parks and recreational facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
3.16.1.1 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on recreation is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.13-34 through 3.13-35. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan would result in development that could increase use of recreational resources in South San Francisco. However, with adherence to the General Plan policies and actions, and the City Municipal Code (including payment of impact fees), cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar recreation impacts as the project. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be subject to a payment of the park and recreation impact fee in accordance with Chapter 8.67 of the City Municipal Code. In addition, it is likely that the Infinite 131 project would also incorporate open space and/or amenity uses as part of the project’s design, which would provide recreational opportunities for future employees and the public on site. Furthermore, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with the same policies and actions provided in the General Plan, and described above, which would ensure that parks and recreational facilities are able to accommodate growth generated by new development. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to recreation. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.16.2 Conclusion With regard to Recreation, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-85 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.17 Transportation and Circulation
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
17. TRANSPORTATION:
Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Impact TRANS-2, pp. 3.14-41 to 3.13-44; and Impact TRANS-3, pp. 3.14-44 to3.14-47
No No No No Yes
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Impact TRANS-1, pp. 3.14-35 to 3.14-40
No No No No No (Impact is S/U with mitigation in EIR) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact TRANS-4, pp. 3.14-48 to 3.14-50
No No No No No (Impact is S/U with mitigation in EIR) d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRANS-5; pp. 3.14-50 to3.14-52
No No No No Yes
3.17.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to transportation has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.14, Transportation, of the General Plan Draft EIR. To supplement the environmental setting discussion in the General Plan EIR, Fehr and Peers prepared the Infinite 101 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The following discussion is based on the analysis provided in the TIA, which is included as Appendix J to this document.
3.17.1.1 Conflicts with Programs, Ordinances, or Policies Addressing the
Circulation System The analysis of impacts related to conflicts with programs, ordinances, or policies addressing the City’s circulation system is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact TRANS-2 (pages 3.14-41 to 3.14-44) and TRANS-3 (pages 3.14-44 to 3.14-47). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan would result in increased use of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, compliance with the City Zoning Ordinance, specifically TDM and bicycle parking requirements, would ensure that potential impacts from new development would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-86 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
The proposed project would provide multimodal circulation improvements within the site and along the frontage of the navigable slough consistent with the goals identified in the General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Active South City Plan), and TDM Ordinance. The proposed project would be designed to separate bicycles and pedestrians from vehicle traffic, which would circulate along the perimeter of the site. The central courtyard would be designed for pedestrians and bicyclists, with access to the site provided by a shuttle service that runs to and from regional transit stations. Speed humps and raised crosswalks would be included on the internal roadways to prevent high vehicle travel speeds where there may be conflicts with other road users. These design features align with General Plan Goals MOB-1, MOB-2, MOB-4, and MOB-5. The proposed project would also facilitate north-south bicycle and pedestrian travel across the site. In addition, the proposed project would not affect the potential implementation of the Utah Avenue Overpass or its connections to the relevant roadways and ramps, as identified in the General Plan. The Active South City Plan, General Plan, and Lindenville Specific Plan, identify a Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail crossing of U.S.-101 to connect the Bay Trail with Shaw Road, with an eventual extension to the Centennial Way Trail via a grade separated crossing of Caltrain. The proposed project would allocate an approximately 5-foot easement for a bicycle and pedestrian path along the navigable slough and Shaw Road driveway on the southern portion of the project site between Shaw Road and U.S. 101. Although no bicycle and pedestrian pathway is proposed here as part of the project, the easement would not preclude completion of the path, as well as the bicycle and pedestrian bridge across U.S. 101, consistent with General Plan Policy MOB-2.1.3 and as identified in the Active South City Plan, and the proposed project’s improvement measure TRANS-3. This measure would require the preparation of an engineering analysis of the potential trail crossing alignments, and incorporation of the preferred alternative alignment into the proposed project’s site plan, and provide a fair share contribution toward construction of the crossing. Such pedestrian and bicyclist improvements, if pursued, would be subject to review under CEQA in the future. However, these improvements are not evaluated as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with the measures and monitoring requirements identified in the TDM Ordinance, as outlined in the TDM Plan included in Appendix F. The proposed project would implement a TDM Plan that includes an enhanced shuttle commitment to serve first-last mile connections to the site, active transportation gap closures, and fully subsidized transit passes for employees. The TDM Plan would implement a 50 percent trip cap and would align with General Plan goals MOB-3 and MOB-4. Furthermore, in addition to the policies and actions in the General Plan, the proposed project would not negatively impact the potential implementation of the Utah Avenue Overpass or its connections to the relevant roadways and ramps, as identified in the General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with city-wide planning documents, including the 2040 General Plan and Active South City Plan. The proposed project includes multimodal site design with traffic calming treatments, a new Class I multi-use path, first/last mile shuttle service, and a TDM program consistent with City requirements. The proposed project does not preclude transportation improvements identified in the City’s transportation plans, such as completion of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge and the Utah Avenue overcrossing over U.S. 101. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact.
3.17.1.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The analysis of impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact TRANS-1 (pages 3.14-35 to 3.14-40). The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would increase vehicle trips. Even with implementation of General Plan policies and
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-87 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
actions, compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance, and implementation of MM TRANS-1,
Transportation Demand Management, build-out of the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Project Travel Demand As detailed in the TIA (Appendix J), project trip generation was calculated using the most recent edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual for R&D land use and reductions associated with the project’s TDM plan, consistent with the City’s TIA Guidelines as summarized in Table 3.17-1.
Table 3.17-1. Trip Generation
Site Trips
Size
(KSF)
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total R&D1 669 6,556 495 107 602 94 475 569 Amenity Space2 27 236 17 16 33 13 11 24 TDM Reduction (34%)3 -2,229 -168 -36 -205 -32 -161 -193 Net New Trips 4,563 344 87 431 75 324 399 Notes: 1. Trip generation rates are based on ITE 11th Edition (land Use #760 – Research and Development Center). 2. Amenity space includes external trips associated with the gym and restaurant. Trip calculation includes 80% pass-by reduction to account for on-site employees representing the majority of users. Conference space is excluded from peak hour trip generation because the majority of events are expected to occur outside of peak periods. 3. 34 percent trip reduction based on TDM Plan, consistent with City’s TDM policy for Tier 4 project. Source: Fehr & Peers. 2023. Infinite 101 Transportation Impact Analysis. September 2023. The proposed project trip generation above includes some external vehicle trips associated with the dining and fitness amenity space; however, the majority of users will be employees and will already be on site. Trip generation also includes a 34 percent reduction associated with the project’s TDM Plan, consistent with the City’s TDM ordinance for a Tier 4 project. According to this trip generation analysis, the proposed project would generate 4,563 weekday daily trips, 431 net new a.m. peak hour trips, and 399 net new p.m. peak hour trips.
Vehicle Miles Traveled The proposed project was analyzed based on home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee. HBW VMT per employee was derived from the C/CAG Travel Demand Model. This metric follows the City and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance for measuring office project VMT and helps compare the proposed project’s relative transportation efficiency to the regional average baseline. Based on these factors, a significant impact would occur if existing HBW VMT per employee in the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) is higher than 15 percent below the existing regional average. Based on the City’s analysis using the C/CAG Model, this threshold would be set at 12.7 (15 percent below the existing regional average of 14.9) HBW VMT per employee for office and R&D projects as shown in Table 3.17-2. This threshold of 12.7 HBW VMT per employee also applies to cumulative conditions.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-88 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Table 3.17-2. Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee
Location Estimated HBW VMT per Employee Bay Area Region (Existing) 14.9
VMT Reduction Factor 15%
HBW VMT Per Employee Threshold 12.7 Project TAZ 16.7 Note: HBW= home-based work; VMT = vehicle miles traveled. Source: Fehr & Peers. 2023. Infinite 101 Transportation Impact Analysis. September 2023. As shown in Table 3.17-2, the proposed project would generate 16.7 HBW VMT per employee under existing conditions, which is greater than the significance threshold of 12.7 HBW VMT. This finding is consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s 2040 General Plan EIR (Impact TRANS-1), which concluded that the implementation of the General Plan would result in VMT in excess of the City’s VMT threshold of 15 percent below the current regional average. The proposed project, being consistent with the findings of the General Plan, would contribute to this significant and unavoidable impact to VMT, but would not increase the severity of the significant impact. As stated in the TIA, the proposed project would be required to implement MM TRANS-1 from the General Plan EIR. Implementation of this measure would ensure that the proposed project would not worsen or exacerbate the impact. As such, the proposed project’s VMT impact would be significant and
unavoidable with implementation of General Plan EIR mitigation measures, but no more severe
than the significant and unavoidable impact identified in the General Plan EIR.
Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1, Transportation Demand Management. To reduce VMT, the City shall implement its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements. The City shall also update its TDM Ordinance and parking requirements every five to ten years and establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap, to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in vehicle travel. The City shall achieve the performance standards outlined in the TDM Ordinance pursuant to Section 20.400.004 of the Zoning Ordinance. The City shall review and update its TDM Ordinance every five to ten years to limit Total VMT and Work-Based VMT by incentivizing use of transit and active transportation and disincentivizing auto use. The TDM Ordinance shall cover all development projects generating greater than 100 daily trips, with the most stringent requirements for office/R&D land uses that disproportionately account for the highest rates of VMT in South San Francisco. Development projects shall implement a combination of TDM programs (pursuant to Sections 20.400.003 and 20.400.004 of the Zoning Ordinance), services, and infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to: establishing trip reduction programs; subsidizing transit and active transportation use; coordinating carpooling and vanpooling; encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules; designing site plans to prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel; funding first/last mile shuttle services; establishing site-specific trip caps; managing parking supply; and constructing transit and active transportation capital improvements. Developments shall be subject to annual reporting and monitoring. The City shall establish a fine structure for developments found to be out of compliance and apply any revenues from fines to infrastructure and services aimed at reducing VMT.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-89 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
The City shall establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap to support the monitoring of vehicle trip activity and focus efforts to reduce VMT. The area-wide trip cap shall apply to the high intensity employment uses in the East of 101 Area. The City shall conduct annual traffic counts along the cordon area perimeter. Should the trip cap be reached, the City shall consider corrective actions such as: revising mode share targets for projects subject to the TDM Ordinance, identifying new funding measures for TDM services, implementing new vehicle user charges, creating new street connections, or slowing the pace of development approvals within the cordon zone. The City shall review and update its parking requirements every five to ten years to align with its TDM Ordinance and East of 101 Area Trip Cap. The City shall establish parking maximums for office/R&D uses to ensure that VMT reduction goals are incorporated into the design of development projects.
3.17.1.3 Substantially Increased Hazards due to a Geometric Design
Feature The analysis of impacts related to increased hazards due to a geometric design feature is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact TRANS-4 (pages 3.14-48 to 3.14-50). The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would increase vehicle trips on the City’s freeway ramps, which would exacerbate vehicle queues on off-ramps that already experience queues exceeding storage capacity. Even with implementation of General Plan policies and actions, and implementation of MM TRANS-1, Transportation Demand Management, and TRANS-4, Freeway Offramp Queue
Improvements, build-out of the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The proposed project would not pose any onsite design hazards or incompatible land uses. However, the proposed project would increase vehicle trips at the intersections of U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp/Produce Avenue and U.S. 101 southbound on-ramp/Terminal Court/Produce Avenue. The addition of vehicle trips along the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp would cause vehicle queues to spill over onto U.S. 101 off-ramp and create hazardous conditions for vehicle trips and pedestrians exiting Terminal Court onto Produce Avenue. . As detailed above, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan is likely to increase vehicle trips on City freeway ramps, which could exacerbate vehicle queues on ramps already in excess of their storage capacity. The project, being consistent with the General Plan, would contribute to this significant impact, but would not increase the severity of the significant impact. However, the proposed project would be required to implement MM TRANS-4 from the General Plan EIR. Implementation of this measure would ensure the vehicle queuing impacts would be less than significant. Specifically, in implementing this mitigation measure, the proposed project would incorporate a new traffic signal and reconfigure lanes at the U.S. 101/Produce Avenue off-ramp intersection to reduce multimodal conflicts through project improvement measure TRANS-1 as outlined in the TIA. In addition, through project improvement measure TRANS-2, as outlined in the TIA, the proposed project would also incorporate a new traffic signal and high visibility crosswalk at the U.S. 101 on-ramp/Terminal Court/Produce Avenue intersection to improve vehicle and pedestrian circulation surrounding the project site. Because ramp queue improvements would be implemented, along with implementation of other design features outlined in the TDM plan, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of General Plan EIR
mitigation measures, but no more severe than the significant and unavoidable impact
identified in the General Plan EIR.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-90 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Applicable General Plan Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-4, Freeway Offramp Queue Improvements. To minimize queueing hazards, the City shall work with Caltrans to develop improvement measures for freeway off-ramps and adjacent intersections that help manage offramp queues. These measures may include geometric changes, changes to signal timing and phasing, and new connections as identified in Table 3.14-5. Such improvement measures shall not adversely affect pedestrian, bicycle, and transit conditions or otherwise undermine the City’s VMT mitigation efforts described in MM TRANS-1. MM TRANS-1 is also applicable here and should be implemented to minimize freeway offramp queues.
3.17.1.4 Emergency Access The analysis of impacts related to inadequate emergency access is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact TRANS-5 (pages 3.14-50 to 3.14-52). The EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Although development under the General Plan would result in increased travel demand and altered land use patterns that could impede emergency access, compliance with the City Zoning Ordinance, specifically TDM requirements, would ensure that potential impacts from new development would be less than significant. Vehicle trips generated by the project would represent a small percentage of overall daily and peak hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the study area. The project would generate about eight to nine vehicle trips per minute on average during peak hours, which is not expected to introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles traveling near the project site. The proposed project would not include features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities; fire and police vehicles would continue to have access to all facilities around the entire City. Emergency vehicles would have full access to the project site from all driveways connecting to adjacent streets; each driveway would be equipped to handle all types of emergency vehicles. Specifically, dedicated access to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided via Terminal Court and the Shaw Road connection. The project site would include 20- to 26-foot-wide fire lanes around the perimeter of the project site, providing access to each building. Most fire lanes would be within a 200-foot-hose pull distance of all first-floor exterior walls, unless alternate compliance is authorized by the local fire jurisdiction. Therefore, the project would result in adequate emergency access, and the Project’s impacts to emergency access would be less than significant.
3.17.1.5 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on transportation is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.14-53 through 3.14-55. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with the nine Bay Area counties, would result in increased transportation impacts as a result of population and housing growth. Implementation of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT and roadway safety. Therefore, the General Plan EIR would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-91 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 131 project would most likely have similar transportation impacts as the project. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with applicable transportation regulations and policies identified in the analysis above within the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan, including mitigation measures and TDM requirements, to reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Nonetheless, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, could result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation. However, given that the proposed project would result in less than significant transportation impacts with implementation of identified mitigation measures in the General Plan, the proposed project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be significant, but not exceeding the cumulative impact previously identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.17.2 Conclusion With regard to Transportation, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. Implementation of mitigation measures and/or development policies and standards contained within the General Plan EIR would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-92 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is:
No No No No Yes
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
Impact CUL-4, pp. 3.4-37 and 3.4-38
No No No No Yes
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision I(c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Impact CUL-5, pp. 3.4-38 No No No No Yes
3.18.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to tribal and cultural resources has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources
and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the General Plan Draft EIR.
3.18.1.1 Setting Tribal cultural resources were originally identified as a distinct CEQA environmental category with adoption of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 in September 2014. For all projects that are subject to CEQA with a notice of preparation (NOP), notice of negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration received on or after July 1, 2015, AB 52 requires the lead agency on a proposed project to consult with the geographically affiliated California Native American tribes. The legislation creates a broad
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-93 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
new category of environmental resources, tribal cultural resources, that must be considered under CEQA. AB 52 requires a lead agency to consider not only the resource’s scientific and historical value but also whether it is culturally important to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 defines tribal cultural resources as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the criteria of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) (CEQA Section 21074). In accordance with AB 52, the NAHC was contacted on February 23, 2023, and asked to conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File and provide a list of California Native American tribes that have a cultural affiliation with the geographic area where the project site is located. On March 27, 2023, the NAHC indicated that the search of its Sacred Lands File identified sacred lands in the vicinity of the project site and provided a list of eight tribal representatives. On April 5, 2023, the City sent letters to the eight individuals identified by the NAHC. The letters included a brief description of the proposed project, the results of a literature record search, project location maps, and a request for comments, concerns, or knowledge regarding sacred lands or heritage sites in the project area. The following individuals were contacted:
• Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson – Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
• Tony Cerda, Chairperson – Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
• Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson – Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
• Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD – Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
• Chalene Nijmeh, Chairperson – Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
• Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman – Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
• Andrew Galvan, Chairperson – The Ohlone Indian Tribe
• Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson – Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band To date, no responses have been received from the Native American tribes. Appendix K contains the letter that was sent from the NAHC and a record of the City’s communication with Native American tribes. The General Plan EIR found less-than-significant impacts related to tribal resources with implementation of governing rules and regulations. Tribal consultation was conducted for the General Plan EIR during the NOP process; but no tribes responded to the NOP. The General Plan EIR concluded that not one goal, policy, or implementation measure would be expected to completely avoid or reduce an identified potential impact on tribal resources. However, implementation of existing regulations and policies were found to reduce impacts to less than significant.
3.18.1.2 Impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources The analysis of impacts on tribal cultural resources is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact CUL-4 and CUL-5 (pages 3.4-37 to 3.4-38). The General Plan EIR determined that, through adherence to applicable local codes and implementation of the policies and actions included in the General Plan, potential impacts would be less than significant because development under the
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-94 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
General Plan would need to comply with Policy ES-11.1, which requires the City to identify, preserve, and protect TCRs, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s). Policy ES-11.3 requires the City to consult with local Native American tribes to identify, evaluate, and appropriately address TCRs and tribal sacred sites through the development review process. However, the potential exists for previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be encountered during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. To determine the sensitivity of the project site with respect to Native American resources, the NAHC and local Native American groups were consulted, but none of the tribes responded. A records search conducted at the NWIC found that one Native American archaeological site was located within or adjacent to the project area, although subsequent testing suggests that this resource was incorrectly mapped and may not be within the project area. Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the General Plan EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to tribal resources than those identified previously. The Project would not result in a significant impact peculiar to the Project, a significant impact not previously identified, or a significant impact due to substantial new information. Implementation of existing rules and regulations governing tribal resources would ensure that potential impacts would be less than
significant.
3.18.1.3 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.4-38 through 3.4-40. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, and Millbrae, could result in impacts on known or previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. However, with adherence to federal, State, and local laws and policies that protect tribal cultural resources, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, Infinite 131 would most likely have similar tribal cultural resources impacts as the project. The Infinite 131 project would be constructed on an infill site that is in an area that is already highly disturbed. It is likely that the Infinite 131 project would be constructed on a site where the ground surface has been disturbed and/or covered with fill and gravel. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with regulations set forth by local, State, and federal agencies which protect tribal cultural resources, including policies and actions identified in the General Plan, to ensure that project activities would not result in the inadvertent destruction of a tribal cultural resource and that human remains discovery procedures would be implemented. Therefore, the proposed project,
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-95 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant.
3.18.2 Conclusion With regard to Tribal Cultural Resources, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-96 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project: a) 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 environment?
Impact UTIL-1, pp. 3.15-28 to 3.15-30
No No No No Yes
b) Have adequate water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2, pp. 3.15-30 to 3.15-35
No No No No Yes
c) 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?
Impact UTIL-3, pp. 3.15-35 to 3.15-38
No No No No Yes
d) 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?
Impact UTIL-4, pp. 3.15-38 to 3.15-40
No No No No Yes
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTIL-4, pp. 3.15-38 to 3.15-40
No No No No Yes
3.19.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to utilities and service systems has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.15, Utilities and Service
Systems, of the General Plan Draft EIR.
3.19.1.1 Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Facilities The analysis of impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact UTIL-1 (pages 3.15-28 to 3.15-30). The General Plan EIR determined that adequate water supplies would be available from Cal Water South San Francisco District and the Westborough Water District and that no new or expanded water
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-97 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
treatment facilities would be needed. In addition, adequate wastewater collection and treatment capacity would be available and no new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities would be needed. The General Plan EIR also found that City requirements and policies would ensure that runoff would not inundate downstream storm drainage facilities such that new or expanded facilities would be required. Lastly, because the General Plan would not result in unplanned growth, the majority of growth would be infill. Because the utility providers take into consideration all future growth projections in their planning efforts, no new or expanded electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, beyond those already planned, would be required. Impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
Water Facilities As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, on-site water system improvements would include the pipes, valves, private fire hydrants, meters and submeters, and backflow preventers needed to serve the proposed uses. The proposed project would include the installation of a 4-inch domestic water main on the project site, which would connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Terminal Court. The proposed project would also install a 10-inch water main on-site to meet all on-site fire-water needs. These improvements are included in the project’s design, and impacts from these improvements are analyzed throughout this environmental checklist. In addition, proposed sustainability measures would include ultra-efficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures and low-water-demand native and/or adapted vegetation with efficient irrigation systems, which would reduce the water demand of the proposed project. The proposed project would be consistent with the development assumptions assumed for the project site in the General Plan EIR as well as the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Impacts from the expansion of water facilities to serve the project site are discussed throughout this environmental checklist, as specified in the General Plan EIR. There are no particular impacts on the project site or impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are also no significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed or any adverse impacts that would be more severe. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
Wastewater Facilities Proposed sewer system improvements would include upgrading an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main that runs underneath the navigable slough south of the project site to a 12-inch main to support the proposed project. Proposed on-site sewer pipes would be between 6 and 10 inches in diameter and connect to the upsized sewer main beneath the navigable slough. These improvements are included in the project’s design. Impacts from the improvements are analyzed in this environmental checklist. In addition, proposed sustainability measures would include ultra-efficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures, which would reduce the wastewater demand of the proposed project. The proposed project would be consistent with the development assumptions assumed for the project site in the General Plan EIR as well as the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Impacts from the expansion of wastewater facilities to serve the project site are discussed throughout this environmental checklist, as specified in the General Plan EIR. There are no particular impacts on the project site or impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are also no
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-98 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed, nor any adverse impacts that would be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
Stormwater Facilities On-site storm drain improvements would include bioretention ponds, flow-through planters, and Silva Cell units to provide LID treatment on the project site. In addition, the project would install stormwater pipes measuring between 6 and 18 inches in diameter. New connections would be made to an existing 15-inch storm drain main in Terminal Court. These improvements are included in the project’s design, and impacts from these improvements are analyzed throughout this environmental checklist. The proposed project would be designed to conserve resources and protect water quality through the management of stormwater runoff, using LID methods where feasible. This approach would implement engineered controls that would allow stormwater filtering and storage as well as partial flood control. Bioretention basins, flow-through planters, Silva Cell units, and other site design features to manage stormwater runoff flows and reduce stormwater pollution would be located throughout the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with the development assumptions assumed for the project site in the General Plan EIR as well as the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Impacts from the expansion of stormwater facilities to serve the project site are discussed throughout this environmental checklist, as specified in the General Plan EIR. There are no particular impacts on the project site or impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are also no significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed, nor any adverse impacts that would be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
Electrical, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication Facilities The project proposes the installation of new connections for dry utility service. All electrical and telecommunication utilities would be connected to existing electrical and telecommunication utilities. The proposed project would not include any new connections for natural gas, which would not be used by the project. These improvements are included in the project’s design. Impacts from these improvements are analyzed throughout this environmental checklist. The proposed project would achieve a minimum LEED version 4.1 BD+C Core and Shell Gold rating as well as WELL v2 Core Gold certification.55 Proposed sustainability measures would include an all-electric building design, on-site renewable energy from rooftop PV panels, a high-performance building envelope and HVAC system, and electric-vehicle charging infrastructure. The proposed project would be consistent with the development assumptions assumed for the project site in the General Plan EIR as well as the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Impacts from the expansion of electric and telecommunications facilities to serve the project site are discussed throughout this environmental checklist, as specified in the General Plan EIR. There are no particular impacts on the project site or any impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are also no significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed, nor any adverse 55 The WELL Building Standards are performance-based building standards for measuring and monitoring features within the built environment that may affect human health through air, water, light, and other concepts. The standards provide ways for buildings to be designed to improve human comfort and enhance health and wellness within the built environment.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-99 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
impacts that would be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
3.19.1.2 Water Supply The analysis of impacts on water supply is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact UTIL-2 (pages 3.15-30 to 3.15-35). As described in the General Plan EIR, given that both Cal Water and the Westborough Water District have considered projected growth, including projected growth identified by the Association of Bay Area Governments, and determined that adequate water supplies are anticipated to be available to accommodate future demands of development within their service areas, compliance with future water reductions under dry-year scenarios, compliance with the policies and actions in the General Plan, compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221, the provision of will-serve letters, and compliance with existing water conservation regulations and drought plans would ensure that impacts related to the water supply would remain less than significant. In addition, compliance with the Water-Neutral Development Policy, once adopted, would provide additional assurance that impacts related to the water supply would remain less than significant. Similarly, cumulative impacts under this topic would not be cumulatively considerable, and the General Plan’s incremental contribution would be less than significant. A water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed project by Cal Water to analyze potential project impacts. The following discussion is based on the WSA, which is included as Appendix L. After adjusting for existing water use at the site (i.e., 0.19 acre-feet per year [afy]), the incremental increase in water demand associated with the proposed project at full build-out and full occupancy is estimated to be 144 afy. However, in accordance with Cal Water’s Development Offset Program (the Water-Neutral Development Policy referenced in the General Plan EIR), the project sponsor would be required to pay a special facilities fee of $15,400 per acre-foot to offset the net water demand increase . This would be used to fund accelerated water supply projects and expanded customer conservation programs that would result in no net increase in water demand in Cal Water’s South San Francisco (SSF) District. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to offset its net demand increase, which would be calculated prior to establishing a new water service connection. The project would not be expected to result in a net increase in water demand in Cal Water’s SSF District. Regarding water supply availability, it is projected that available water supplies would be able to meet water demand under normal-year hydrologic conditions through 2045, inclusive of the proposed project. However, in drought periods, shortfalls of up to 53 percent would be possible if the “worst-case” supply scenario is realized (i.e., the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented as written). In response to anticipated future dry-year shortfalls, Cal Water has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that systematically identifies ways in which the SSF District can reduce water demand during dry years. The overall reduction goals in the WSCP are established for six drought stages, with shortfalls ranging from 10 percent to more than 50 percent. Cal Water is also striving to increase the water supply portfolio for the SSF, Mid-Peninsula, and Bear Gulch Districts through (1) investment in water conservation, (2) participation in the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project and the Regional Water Recycling Project, and (3) development of a regional water supply reliability study, using integrated resource planning practices to create a long-term supply reliability strategy through 2050 for Cal Water districts in the Bay Area. Therefore, the WSA concludes that, through supply augmentation and implementation of
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-100 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
demand management measures to offset the proposed project’s estimated net new demand, consistent with Cal Water’s Development Offset Program, the proposed project would not affect water supply reliability within the SSF District. Based on currently available information and conservative estimates of projected demand, Cal Water expects to be able to meet all future demands within its existing SSF District service area, as well as the Mid-Peninsula and Bear Gulch Districts, inclusive of the proposed project, in normal hydrologic years. The shortfalls that are currently projected during dry years will be addressed through planned implementation of the SSF District WSCP. In addition, Cal Water and other regional agencies are pursuing development of additional water supplies to improve the regional water system and SSF District supply reliability. Further, because the proposed project would be consistent with the land uses and growth envisioned for the project site under the General Plan, it would be within the overall water demand projections evaluated in the General Plan EIR with buildout of the General Plan. There are no particular impacts on the project site or any impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are also no significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed, nor any adverse impacts that would be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
3.19.1.3 Wastewater Treatment Capacity The analysis of impacts on wastewater treatment capacity is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact UTIL-3 (pages 3.15-35 to 3.15-38). Although development facilitated by the project analyzed in the General Plan EIR would result in an increase in demand for wastewater collection and treatment, the General Plan EIR found that the wastewater collection systems and treatment plants would have adequate capacity to support new infill development within the planning area. The City’s sewer capacity charge reduces impacts caused by future development and redevelopment in South San Francisco by financing the replacement and renewal of existing sanitary sewer facilities as well as the upgrade and construction of new sanitary sewer facilities. Furthermore, the stormwater management plans consider future growth in South San Francisco, such as that associated with the proposed project. Finally, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan includes projects that cover both the wastewater system and the water quality control plant. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater collection and treatment would be less than significant. Similarly, cumulative impacts for this topic would not be cumulatively considerable, and the General Plan’s incremental contribution would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the development assumptions assumed for the project site in the General Plan EIR as well as the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The amount of wastewater generated by the proposed project is accounted for in the wastewater projections of the General Plan EIR. As described in more detail in the General Plan EIR, the combined capacity of the two wastewater treatment plants that serve the city would be enough to treat up to 23.3 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater; they currently have additional dry-weather capacity of approximately 14.6 mgd. New development under the General Plan is projected to generate 3.13 mgd of wastewater, which would represent 23.3 percent of the total treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plants. Therefore, the wastewater treatment plants have the capacity to handle the General Plan’s increase in wastewater, which includes wastewater that would be generated by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would include sustainability features such as ultra-efficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures and low-water-demand native and/or adapted vegetation with efficient irrigation systems to reduce water consumption, which, in turn, would reduce wastewater generation.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-101 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
There are no particular impacts on the project site or any impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are also no significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed, nor any adverse impacts that would be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
3.19.1.4 Solid Waste The analysis of impacts related to solid waste is included in the General Plan EIR as Impact UTIL-4 (pages 3.15-38 to 3.15-40). The General Plan EIR determined that the remaining capacity of landfills would be more than enough to accommodate the solid waste generated by implementation of the General Plan. Furthermore, all future development projects proposed in South San Francisco would be required to abide by and be consistent with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations, California Public Resources Code, and City General Plan and City Municipal Code. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Similarly, cumulative impacts for this topic would not be cumulatively considerable, and the General Plan’s incremental contribution would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the development assumptions assumed for the project site in the General Plan EIR as well as the analysis in the General Plan EIR. The amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project is accounted for in the solid waste projections of the General Plan EIR. As described in more detail in the General Plan EIR, development under the General Plan would generate approximately 59,014.2 tons, or 42,153.0 cubic yards, of solid waste at full build-out. The four landfills that serve the city have a combined remaining capacity of 43.43 million cubic yards. The solid waste generated by the General Plan would represent approximately 0.09 percent of the remaining capacity of the servicing landfills. This capacity would be more than enough to accommodate the solid waste generated by implementation of the General Plan, which includes the solid waste that would be generated by the proposed project. The proposed project would include on-site recycling and composting facilities, in accordance with the requirements of AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383. The City requires further separation of mixed recycled material into paper, containers, and cardboard. The project design would incorporate two central trash rooms for trash produced during operation. Waste would be compacted with use of a compactor with a 10-yard roll-off in the I101N building and a 15-yard roll-off in the I101S building. The paper recycling stream would be compacted with use of a compactor with a 10-yard roll-off in both buildings. Recycled container-type material would be disposed of in 4-cubic-yard front-load bins. Compost would be disposed of in 2-cubic-yard front-load bins. Cardboard would be deposited into a baler. For construction and demolition, 100 percent of all inert solids (i.e., building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (i.e., all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the City Municipal Code. There are no particular impacts on the project site or any impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. There are also no significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not analyzed, nor any adverse impacts that would be more severe than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-102 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.19.1.5 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.15-40 through3.15-42. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan, along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, and Millbrae, would not result cumulative impacts on utilities and services with implementation of regulatory requirements, including General Plan policies and actions and City Municipal Code regulations. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when considered with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and Zoning Code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, Infinite 131 would very likely have impacts on utilities and service systems similar to those of the project. The Infinite 131 project would be constructed on an infill site in an area that is already highly developed. Therefore, it is likely that the Infinite 131 project would be constructed on a site with existing utility connections. Similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements, including General Plan policies and actions and City Municipal Code regulations, and participate in Cal Water’s Development Offset Program to ensure that project activities would not result in significant impacts on utilities and service systems. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems. The cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.19.2 Conclusion With regard to Utilities and Service Systems, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-103 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.20 Wildfire
Environmental Issue Area
Where in the GP EIR Is This Topic Discussed?
Any Peculiar Impact on the Project Site?
Any Impact Not Analyzed as Significant in the GP EIR?
Any Significant Off-site or Cumulative Impact Not Analyzed?
Any Adverse Impact More Severe, Based on Substantial New Information?
Do the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures or Development Policies/Standards Resolve Impacts?
20. WILDFIRE:
Would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Impact WILD-2, pp. 13.16-16 to 13.16-17
No No No No Yes
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Impact WILD-3, pp. 13.6-18 to 13.16-19
No No No No Yes
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities, that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment?
Impact WILD-4, pp. 13.6-19 to 13.16-20
No No No No Yes
d) 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?
Impact WILD-5, pp. 13.6-20 to 13.16-21
No No No No Yes
3.20.1 Discussion No substantial change in the environmental setting related to wildfire has occurred since certification of the General Plan EIR, as described in Section 3.16, Wildfire, of the General Plan Draft EIR. The analysis of impacts related to wildfire is included in the General Plan EIR as Impacts WILD-1 through WILD-5 (pages 3.16-16 to 3.16-21). The General Plan EIR determined that the development envisioned under the General Plan is generally focused in already-developed areas of the city but notes that such development could result in an incremental increase in the exposure of people and structures to wildland fires and associated hazards within the planning area. Future projects would be required to comply with the fire protection measures in the policies and actions of the General Plan and the City Municipal Code. In addition, the San Mateo – Santa Cruz County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, San Mateo County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Mateo County Emergency Operation Plan would continue to be implemented, and architectural and development plans would be reviewed by the SSFFD. Projects developed under the General Plan would be required to comply with applicable Fire Code requirements that pertain to emergency access as well
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-104 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
as policies that further enhance emergency response. The Division of Fire Prevention would assist in protecting life and property in the event of a wildfire. Implementation of the General Plan policies and actions would also reduce potential impacts related to exposure to wildland fires and associated hazards. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. The General Plan Planning Area, including the project site, is not located in an FHSZ in an SRA or a VHFHSZ in an LRA. The project site and all surrounding areas are within LRA, which is not identified as a Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. The area surrounding the project site is generally developed and lacking features that normally elevate wildland fire risks (e.g., dry vegetation, steeply sloped hills, etc.). Because the project site is not located within or near an SRA or a VHFHSZ, and because the proposed project would comply with all policies and regulations outlined in the General Plan related to wildfire, this impact would be less than significant, and the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis.
3.20.1.1 Cumulative Impacts The analysis of cumulative impacts on wildfire is included in the General Plan EIR on pages 3.16-21 through 3.16-22. The analysis concluded that build-out of the General Plan along with development in surrounding communities, including Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, and Millbrae, could result in impacts related to wildfire due to increased development and growth. However, with adherence to the Fire Code, administrative design review process and standards of each applicable jurisdiction, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR. One cumulative project has been identified that would be inconsistent with the land use designation established for its site under the General Plan and zoning code. This project, the Infinite 131 project, is located on an approximately 17-acre site west of and adjacent to the project site. The project would demolish an existing produce terminal and surface parking and construct approximately 1.5 million square feet of life sciences and R&D office space within several six-story buildings. As an R&D use, Infinite 131 would most likely have similar wildfire impacts as the project. As the Infinite 131 site is immediately adjacent to the project site, it is not located in an FHSZ in an SRA or a VHFHSZ in an LRA. The site and all surrounding areas are within LRA, which is not identified as a Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ. In addition, the area surrounding the Infinite 131 site is generally developed and lacking features that normally elevate wildland fire risks (e.g., dry vegetation, steeply sloped hills, etc.). In addition, similar to the proposed project, the Infinite 131 project would be required to comply with design review regulations and policies identified in the analysis above regarding wildfire and fire protection within the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from the Infinite 131 project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to wildfire. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than
significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 3-105 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
3.20.2 Conclusion With regard to Wildfire, the following findings can be made: 1. No peculiar impacts to the project or its site have been identified. 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the General Plan EIR. 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the General Plan EIR. 4. No mitigation measures contained within the General Plan EIR would be required because the project would have no impact.
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 4-1 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
Chapter 4 Report Preparation
4.1 Lead Agency
City of South San Francisco
Community and Economic Development Department
Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Billy Gross, Principal Planner
4.2 Consulting Team
4.2.1 ICF
ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Heidi Mekkelson, Project Director Devan Atteberry, Project Manager Kate Thompson, Deputy Project Manager Cory Matsui, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Darrin Trageser, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Jacqueline Mansoor, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Liz Foley, Noise Specialist Noah Schumaker, Noise Specialist Ross Wilming, Biologist Corey Ng, Biologist Christine Cruiess, Historic Preservation Specialist Nicole Felicetti, Historic Preservation Specialist Lora Holland, Archaeologist Megan Watson, Archaeologist Jennifer Wildt, Archaeologist Kirsten Chapman, Environmental Planner Patrick Maley, Environmental Planner Mario Barrera, Environmental Planner Jennifer Ostner, Environmental Planner Jennifer Andersen, Environmental Planner Katrina Sukola, Hydrology and Water Quality Specialist Roscoe Escobar, GIS Specialist John Conley, Graphics Specialist John Mathias, Editor and Publications Specialist
City of South San Francisco
Report Preparation
Infinite 101 Project
Environmental Checklist 4-2 September 2023
ICF 104667.0.001.01
4.2.2 Fehr & Peers
Fehr & Peers 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Daniel Jacobson, Project Manager, Transportation Engineer/Planner Mike Hawkins, Transportation Engineer/Planner Brian Lin, Transportation Engineer/Planner
4.3 Project Sponsor Team
US Terminal Court Owner, LLC 101 California Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Steve Dunn, Senior Managing Director
Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill (SOM) One Maritime Plaza San Francisco, CA, 94111 Wendy Sitler, RA Hardik Udani, AIA Steve Sobel, FAIA
4.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted
City of South San Francisco
City Attorney’s Office 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Sky Woodruff, City Attorney Claire Lai, Assistant City Attorney
California Water Service, South San Francisco District 1720 North First Street San José, CA 95112 Michael Bolzowski, Senior Engineer