HomeMy WebLinkAbout573 Forbes CEQA Checklist
573 FORBES BOULEVARD PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE EIR (SCH#2021020064)
Lead Agency:
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Prepared By:
Lamphier–Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Road
Ste 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
October 2023
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... i
I. Project Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 1
II. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2
III. Background, Purpose, and Organization ........................................................................... 3
IV. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 7
V. Summary of CEQA Findings ............................................................................................ 18
VI. Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................. 20
A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 21
B. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 24
C. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 30
D. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 34
E. Energy .................................................................................................................................. 37
F. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 40
G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 45
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 48
I. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 52
J. Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 56
K. Noise .................................................................................................................................... 58
L. Population & Housing .......................................................................................................... 61
M. Public Services & Recreation .............................................................................................. 62
N. Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................... 63
O. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................. 67
P. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................ 70
Page ii 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
TABLES
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction ............................................ 26
Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations ....................................................... 27
Table 3: Construction and Operational Energy Usage ............................................................. 38
Table 4: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Thresholds ................................................... 64
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2: Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Visual Model ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 5: Site Access ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 6: Building Elevation, West ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 7: Building Elevation, South .......................................................................................... 16
Figure 8: Parking Garage Elevation, South ............................................................................... 17
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment B: Air Quality Calculations
Attachment C: Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response
Attachment D: Energy Calculations
Attachment E: Transportation Analysis
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 1
I. Project Characteristics
1. Project Title: 573 Forbes Boulevard Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic & Community
Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Phone: 650-877-8535
4. Project Location: 573 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 015-082-170
5. Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: 573 Forbes Blvd, LLC
Contact 1: David Fowler
200 Vesey St., 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Contact 2: Mike Sanford
Sanfo Group LLC
3351 Greenview Drive
El Dorado Hills, CA 96762
6. Existing General Plan Designations: Business Technology Park High
7. Existing Zoning: Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H)
8. Requested Approvals: Design Review, approval of Transportation Demand
Management Plan
Page 2 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
II. Executive Summary
The project site is within the area planned for development as a part of the South San Francisco
2040 General Plan Update (SSF GPU) and associated 2022 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State
Clearinghouse Number 2021020064) and consistent with allowable development for this site. The
project is located in the East of 101 area.
The project proposes to demolish the existing warehouse and construct a new 8-story, 137-foot tall
(with rooftop elements reaching 171 feet), 315,718 square foot (gross square footage) building plus
basement level, and an associated 8-story, 85-foot tall parking garage with 470 parking stalls. The
specific tenant(s) have not been identified, but the applicant is targeting research & development,
office, or technology tenants.
Public Resources Code section 21083.3 provides a limited statutory exemption from CEQA for
projects consistent with the general plan of a local agency and the associated certified
environmental impact report. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines outline
the process for determining the applicability of this statutory exemption in Sections 15168/15162
and 15183.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that when a Programmatic EIR has been prepared and
certified, later activities (such as the proposed project) determined by the lead agency as being
within the scope of the EIR do not require subsequent environmental review, unless the criteria set
forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 triggering subsequent environmental review are met. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183 allows for streamlining the environmental review process for projects that
are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or
general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.
This document serves as substantial evidence that the proposed project is within the scope of the
SSF GPU EIR and that subsequent environmental review is not required since the project would not
have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, and no substantial changes or new
information has arisen that would result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15168/15162 and 15183, this document
therefore serves as substantial evidence that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining as a
project consistent with the SSF GPU and SSF GPU EIR and no further environmental review is
warranted.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 3
III. Background, Purpose, and Organization
Background
The project site is within the South San Francisco 2040 General Plan Update (SSF GPU) planning
area. The SSF GPU was adopted in October 2022, including amendments to the City’s Zoning Code
and Climate Action Plan, and the associated SSF GPU EIR was certified. The SSF GPU land use
designation is Business Technology Park – High (BTP-H), which is intended for corporate
headquarters, offices, and research and development (R&D) use.
The SSF GPU, being a general plan, was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR (State Clearinghouse Number
2021020064) on a programmatic level.
The SSF GPU EIR for South San Francisco is hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained
from the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department at 315
Maple Avenue in South San Francisco, and on the City of South San Francisco website at:
http://weblink.ssf.net under Planning Division/Environmental Reports/2022 General Plan.
Purpose
This document has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA (California
Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of
South San Francisco.
Public Resources Code section 21083.3 provides a limited statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant
to which projects may proceed without additional CEQA analysis. Section 21083.3(b) reads as
follows:
“If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental
impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the
approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are
peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the
prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more
significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.”
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 and the referenced section 15162 (excerpted in full below) explain
the relationship of a programmatic EIR such as the SSF GPU EIR to subsequent analysis of projects
within the program area. As outlined in these sections, the proposed project would require further
environmental review if the project would result in new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects than what was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15183
further clarifies how CEQA assessment proceeds for projects consistent with a community plan or
zoning, such as the SSF GPU and associated zoning.
This Environmental Checklist examines whether the project qualifies for a statutory exemption
under Public Resources Code section 21083.3 as a project consistent with the SSF GPU EIR,
according to the criteria and process outlined in CEQA Guidelines sections 15168/15162 and 15183.
Page 4 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
CEQA Guidelines Code References
CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) provides that later activities in the program must be examined in
the light of the program EIR – in this case, the SSF GPU EIR – to determine whether an additional
environmental document must be prepared and specifies how a program EIR is used with those
later activities.
15168. Program EIR
(c) Use With Later Activities. Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the
program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new
initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration.
That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required,
the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the
program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later
activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency
determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may
consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the
later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building
intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure,
as described in the program EIR.
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the
program EIR into later activities in the program.
(4) Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written
checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to
determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the
program EIR.
(5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description
of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the
program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed project
description and analysis of the program, many later activities could be found to be within
the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental
documents would be required.
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 above indicates that the criteria in section 15162 should be utilized
for determining when additional environmental review is required for subsequent projects within a
programmatic EIR (subsections a and b including applicable criteria are excerpted below):
15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 5
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available
after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if
required under subdivision (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to
prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
CEQA Guidelines section 15183 outlines how to analyze a project consistent with a community plan
or zoning, such as the SSF GPU EIR and associated zoning (subsections a through c including
applicable criteria are excerpted below):
15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning
(a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by
existing zoning, 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 effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This
streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive
environmental studies.
(b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its
examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study
or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or
community plan with which the project is consistent,
Page 6 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed
in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) 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.
(c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the 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, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional
EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
Organization
Section I, Project Characteristics presents a quick reference of the project details.
Section II, Executive Summary includes a summary of conclusions of this document.
Section III, Purpose and Organization (this section).
Section IV, Project Description details the proposed project.
Section V, Summary of CEQA Findings explains the findings of this document.
Section VI, Environmental Checklist details the potential environmental impacts of the project,
including the impact findings of the SSF GPU EIR and relevant Mitigation Measures (MMs) and
explains whether the project would result in new or more significant environmental impacts than
those identified in the 2022 SSF GPU EIR.
Attachment A includes full text of the standard conditions and MMs applicable to the project in the
proposed Standard Conditions and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 7
IV. Project Description
Project Site and Vicinity
East of 101 Area and Technology Businesses
The South San Francisco General Plan Update (SSF GPU) planning area includes all properties located
within the incorporated boundary of the City and the lands within the City’s Sphere of Influence,
approximately 4,456-acres. The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco’s “East of
101” planning area, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and
technological businesses. The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land bound by San
Francisco Bay on the east side, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane and San
Francisco Bay on the north, and San Francisco International Airport and San Bruno on the south. The
area has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and
bioscience R&D facilities. The area is also currently separated from most of South San Francisco’s
residential uses by U.S. 101.
During the recent 2040 General Plan Update and related implementation actions, the General Plan
designation and zoning of 493 acres of the East of 101 area north of the east-west rail spur,
including the project site, were changed from a designation and zoning for industrial or
office/R&D/biotech development to a new Business Technology Park High designation and zoning.
This new land use designation is intended for higher density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities,
and offices with a base maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5, and an allowable FAR of up to 2.0
with provision of additional community benefits. The SSF GPU EIR projected jobs in the Business
Technology Park High area to grow from 24,458 jobs to 40,656 jobs at full buildout anticipated by
the SSF GPU and the square footage to grow from the existing 10,026,728 square feet to 17,814,915
square feet.
Project Site and Adjacent Development
The 2.83-acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-082-170) is located on the north side of
Forbes Boulevard, west of Gull Drive, and is currently occupied with a 33,250 square foot, single-
story tilt-up warehouse. It is flanked by a UPS parking lot to the east, Genentech bus parking lot to
the west, and a USDA APHIS facility to the north, separated by a slope. UCSF Logistics is across
Forbes Boulevard to the south. A Rails to Trails path runs from Forbes Boulevard between the
project site and the Genentech parking lot, curving to continue west behind the bus lot. The location
of the project is shown in Figure 1.
Proposed Project
Figures follow the descriptive text, showing the existing conditions (Figure 2), project site plan
(Figure 3), visual model (Figure 4), site access (Figure 5), and building elevations (Figures 6 through
8).
The project proposes to demolish the existing warehouse and construct a new 8-story, 246,234
square foot (floor area) building plus basement level, and an associated 8-story parking garage with
Page 8 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
470 parking stalls.1 The specific tenant(s) have not been identified, but the applicant is targeting
R&D, office, or technology tenants (abbreviated as “office/R&D” in this document).
The proposed office/R&D building has an approximately 35,000 square foot footprint, reaching a
height of 137 feet above grade, with rooftop elements reaching 171 feet. Starting on the third floor,
each floor is designed to have a private outdoor balcony terrace, with sizes varying. The parking
garage is proposed to reach a height of 85 feet, with a footprint of 26,951 square feet. FAR for the
project is calculated at 2.0.
Access and Circulation
Vehicular Access: The project proposes one main vehicular driveway and a second connection that
would act as a fire and service lane, both on Forbes Boulevard.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrians could enter the office/R&D building along the Forbes
Boulevard frontage, cross the internal roadway from the Rails to Trails path into the lobby, or enter
the lobby from the parking garage.
Transit Facilities & Network Configuration: Commute.org provides shuttle service to the South San
Francisco BART station, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and the South San Francisco Ferry
Terminal. The nearest shuttle stop is approximately 0.4 miles from the project site. The applicant is
coordinating with Oyster Point Mobility, which is privately funded and operated, to provide project
occupants with shuttle service to the Glen Park BART and Millbrae Caltrain stations. The nearest
shuttle stop is approximately 0.4 miles from the project site, but new stops are expected about 0.2
miles away.
Parking: 470 vehicle parking spaces would be provided in the parking garage. Parking for 48 bikes is
proposed, including 24 long term and 24 short term spaces.
Utilities
The project site is a developed lot already served with utilities. Localized lines may need to be
extended or relocated within the project site.
The project is designed to be all electric. A canopy of photovoltaic panels is proposed on the top
level of the parking garage to provide electricity to the project. It is anticipated that the project will
include two 2-megawatt emergency generators (Tier 4 emissions equipment) located to the north
between the office/R&D building and property line.
1 Note that Floor Area for the office/R&D use is presented here because that is what is used for the
assessment of impacts related to operations, consistent with usable square footage per South San
Francisco Zoning Ordinance Section 20.040.009. For construction activities, full gross square feet of all
structures is used instead. Total gross square feet of the office/R&D building plus parking garage is
estimated at 531,326 gross square feet.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 9
Construction
Project construction activities are anticipated to span approximately two years with an assumed
start for purposes of this analysis in late-2023 or later. Demolition and site preparation, including
excavation for the basement, is planned to take approximately four months. Construction of the
office/R&D building is expected to take approximately 22 months, and the parking garage is
expected to be built over approximately 14 months, with a projected start date 5 ½ months after the
start of the office/R&D building construction. Exterior construction is expected to be finished at the
end of 2025 or later.2
The project is estimated to involve removal of 40,000 cubic yards of soil, with a cut of 41,000 cubic
yards and a fill of 1,000 cubic yards. Excavation for the basement would extend to depths of up to
about 25 feet below ground surface.
2 While this analysis was performed with an assumption of a construction start in late-2023, if construction
is initiated later, impacts would be the same or lessened (due to increasing emissions controls) from those
analyzed here.
Page 10 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: Fehr & Peers, Sept. 2023, page 2. See Attachment E.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 11
Figure 2: Existing Conditions
Source: Google Earth, modified
Project Site
Page 12 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Figure 3: Site Plan
Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 6/13/23
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 13
Figure 4: Visual Model
Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 6/13/23
Page 14 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Figure 5: Site Access
Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 6/13/23
N
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 15
Figure 6: Building Elevation, West
Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 6/13/23
Page 16 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Figure 7: Building Elevation, South
Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 6/13/23
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 17
Figure 8: Parking Garage Elevation, South
Source: DGA Architects, Project Plan Set, dated 6/13/23
Page 18 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
V. Summary of CEQA Findings
This Environmental Checklist demonstrates that none of the conditions described in CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162 or 15168 have occurred because as proposed, the project would not
result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than what was analyzed
in the SSF GPU EIR; therefore, no further environmental review is required. This Environmental
Checklist also demonstrates that the proposed project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA
Guidelines section 15183 as there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the
project or its site.
• Program EIR: The analysis conducted in this document indicates that the project is consistent
with the analysis and conclusions in the Program EIR (SSF GPU EIR) and would not require
subsequent analysis per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as confirmed by the following
statements:
(1) The project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) There are no changes in circumstances that would result in the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
(3) There is no new information resulting in a new significant effect or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects, or a change in the feasibility (or
acceptance) of mitigation measures.
The project is within the scope of the SSF GPU Program EIR, and no new environmental
document is required (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)) as confirmed by the following
statements:
(1) The project is a subsequent project within the scope of the Project Description as analyzed
in the Program EIR for the SSF GPU.
(2) The project will have no significant environmental effects not previously addressed in the
SSF GPU Program EIR, and will not have any significant effects that are more severe than
those previously addressed in the SSF GPU Program EIR
(3) No substantial changes to the SSF GPU are proposed as part of this project. No substantial
changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the SSF GPU Program
EIR was certified, and no new information, which was not known and could not have been
known at the time that the SSF GPU Program EIR was certified as complete, has become
available.
(4) No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required.
(5) All applicable regulations and mitigation measures identified in the SSF GPU Program EIR
will be applied to the project or otherwise made conditions of approval of the project.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 19
• Community Plan Exemption: Based on the analysis conducted in this document, and pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this project as a separate and independent basis qualifies for
the exemption for projects consistent with a community plan, general plan, or zoning. This CEQA
document considers the analysis in the SSF GPU EIR as applicable to this project. The project is
permitted in the zoning district where the project site is located and consistent with the bulk,
density, and land use standards envisioned in the SSF GPU. The CEQA Analysis provided herein
concludes that the project would not result in significant impacts that (1) would be peculiar to
the project or project site; (2) were not identified as significant project-level, cumulative, or off-
site effects in the program EIR; or (3) were previously identified as significant but later
determined as having a more severe adverse impact than that discussed in the program EIR.
Examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the Program EIR, as summarized in the
CEQA analysis below, indicates that the prior CEQA document adequately analyzed and covered the
potential environmental impacts associated with this project. The project would not result in a new,
peculiar, significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant
environmental impact than determined in previous Program EIRs. Therefore, no further review or
analysis, under CEQA, is required.
Page 20 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Environmental Checklist compares potential environmental impacts of the project to the
findings of the SSF GPU EIR, notes whether the project would result in new significant impacts or
impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in the SSF GPU EIR and
includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation SU for
significant and unavoidable, LTS for less-than-significant, LTS w/ MMs for impacts that are reduced
to LTS with implementation of identified mitigation measures (MMs), and NI for when No Impact
was identified in the SSF GPU EIR.
The checklist also lists applicable mitigation measures from the SSF GPU EIR. A full list of the MMs
applicable to the project can be found in Attachment A, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). More detail regarding the significance criteria used in this document and the
environmental impacts of implementation of the SSF GPU is available in the SSF GPU Draft and Final
EIR available from the City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development
Department at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco, and on the City of South San Francisco
website at: http://weblink.ssf.net under Planning Division/Environmental Reports/General
Plan/2022 General Plan.
When a dash (--) appears in the checklist below, it means that the SSF GPU EIR did not identify any
MMs related to that environmental impact. N/A appears when an MM was identified but it does not
apply to the project (e.g., the project characteristics do not meet the criteria specified in the MM).
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 21
A. Aesthetics
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR
Findings with
Implementation
of MM (If
Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Scenic Vistas LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Scenic Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Visual Character LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d. Light or Glare LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Scenic Vistas
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with the SSF GPU EIR
Impact AES-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to scenic vistas, as the project does not
have the potential to interfere with designated scenic viewing locations and would be required to
comply with all applicable design and zoning policies.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-1 that while new development might alter views of
San Bruno Mountain, the South San Francisco Hillside Sign at Sign Hill, and the San Francisco Bay,
among other existing views, with mandatory compliance with design review regulations and policies
in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) and Zoning Ordinance and General Plan
Updates, which would require consistency with setback, scale, landscape, and character
requirements to minimize the potential to impact views, the impact would be less than significant.
There are no designated public viewing locations in the vicinity of the project. Views from public
roadways across the site toward the Bay, Sign Hill, and San Bruno Mountain are already substantially
blocked at road level by existing area development, topography, and landscaping, and the
development proposed under the project would not significantly change that condition. As indicated
in the SSF GPU EIR, development projects, including the proposed project, would be required to
comply with the site’s zoning district requirements and all applicable municipal codes and would
undergo design review by the City, which would minimize the potential to impact views. Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 20.480 establishes the procedure for Design Review, to ensure that projects
comply with development standards, including building heights, building setbacks, and landscaping
requirements, which assist in protecting scenic vistas and views throughout the City.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to scenic vistas than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 22 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Scenic Resources
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact AES-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to scenic resources, as the project is
not near a designated or eligible scenic highway.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-2 that the impact in regard to scenic highways would
be less than significant, as there are no designated State Scenic Highways within the SSF GPU
planning area. A portion of State Route 35 is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway;
however, existing trees block most of the views of the City and San Bruno Mountain and therefore
development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to significantly impact
State Route 35.
State Route 35 is over four miles away from the project site. The project site is within the SSF GPU,
and therefore not within an area with the potential for development to significantly impact a
designated or eligible state scenic highway.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to scenic resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Visual Character
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact AES-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to visual character, as the project
would be required to comply with all applicable design and zoning policies and regulations.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-3 that the impact in regard to visual character would
be less than significant, as all new development is required to comply with the policies and actions
in the SSF GPU and rules and regulations in the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance intending to ensure
cohesiveness and visually appealing development.
The visual character of the East of 101 area consists of a mixture of older and newer office,
industrial, and hotel buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. Development of
the project would involve new construction of a modern building including landscaping. While the
height would substantially increase over the existing conditions, the proposed conditions are within
those allowed under zoning and consistent with other development in the East of 101 area. The
project would be required to comply with all applicable municipal codes, including those related to
tree removal and landscaping, and would undergo design review by the City. Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 20.480 establishes the procedure for Design Review, to ensure that projects comply with
development standards, including building heights, building setbacks, and landscaping
requirements, which assist in protecting the character of the City’s different neighborhoods and the
quality of life of City residents. With compliance with development standards confirmed through
Design Review, the project would not have a significant impact on visual character.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to visual character than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 23
Light and Glare
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact AES-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to light and glare, as the project would
be required to comply with all applicable policies and regulations aimed at minimizing new sources
of light and glare.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AES-4 that the impact in regard to light and glare would be
less than significant, as all new development is required to undergo design review and comply with
the policies and actions in the SSF GPU and rules and regulations in the SSFMC and Zoning
Ordinance, intending to minimize visual impacts of additional light and glare created by new
development.
The project site is located in an urban area of the City, on a currently developed lot that generates
light and glare. The project would result in development and lighting treatments typical of the
existing commercial and industrial urban setting. Potential sources of light and glare from the
project are interior and exterior lights, and headlights and glare from additional project vehicles.
As with all new development, the project would be required to comply with design review
regulations and applicable policies in the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance. The project applicant will be
required to submit photometric data from lighting manufacturers to demonstrate that the lighting
plan meets requirements. The SSF Zoning Ordinance contains architectural guidelines, design review
criteria and other regulations to reduce the possibility of light and glare impacts, including general
standards for outdoor lighting, including maximum heights for lighting fixtures, locations and
shielding for lighting fixtures, and prohibits the use of certain types of outdoor lighting, including
lighting that results in glare to motor vehicles on public right-of-way, such as outdoor floodlighting,
search lights, flood lights, laser lights, or similar high intensity light. With compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance, the potential for light and glare impacts of the project would not be significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to light and glare than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 24 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
B. Air Quality
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Conflict with Air
Quality Plan
SU w/MM ☒ ☐ MM AIR-1a: Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
SU w/MM
b. Criteria Air Pollutants SU w/MM ☒ ☐ MM AIR-1a: Basic Construction Mitigation Measures SU w/MM
c. Sensitive
Receptors
LTS w/ MM ☒ ☐ N/A LTS
d. Odors LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Conflict with Air Quality Plan
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains SU w/ MM): Impact AIR-1 and the SU w/ MM conclusions
would apply to the project, as development and trip characteristics under the project would be
consistent with estimated projections in the SSF GPU EIR. SSF GPU MM AIR-1a would apply to the
project to control dust during construction activities. SSF GPU MM AIR-2b would not apply to the
project as there are no nearby sensitive receptors. The project would be required to implement a
project-specific Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, which would serve to reduce
operational emissions, as required under SSF Zoning Ordinance Section 20.400.005 (adopted to
satisfy SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, which applied to the City and not individual projects).
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact AIR-1 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF GPU,
there would be a significant and unavoidable impact in regard to conflict with the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan (2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan), even
though the SSF GPU would support its primary goals and applicable control measures because the
plan’s projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would increase more than its projected population
growth. The SSF GPU EIR determined that with SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, buildout under the SSF GPU
would not have a significant impact on construction fugitive dust thresholds and that with SSF GPU
MM AIR-1b, buildout would not have a significant impact on sensitive receptors, and would support
the primary goals of the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The SSF GPU EIR determined that with
implementation of SSF GPU Policies and Actions and the SSF Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance,
the SSF GPU buildout would include applicable control measures from the 2017 BAAQMD Clean Air
Plan, and would not disrupt or hinder any applicable control measures. However, the SSF GPU would
not reduce VMT per capita. Population growth facilitated by the SSF GPU buildout was estimated at
61% growth, but VMT growth was estimated at 94%.
The project would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations related to emissions and
health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air contaminants or
otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The project is
consistent with all rules and regulations related to construction activities and would be required to
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 25
implement SSF GPU MM AIR-1a to control fugitive dust during construction activities (see next
section). The proposed development would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency
and recycling and green waste requirements.
SSF GPU MM AIR-1b would not apply to the project (see Sensitive Receptors, below).
While the project would implement a TDM program consistent with SSF Zoning Ordinance Section
20.400.005 (adopted in satisfaction of SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, which would reduce the project’s VMT
below City-wide projections), the increased VMT for the project would remain above significance
thresholds for VMT (see Section N: Transportation). Therefore, the project would contribute to the
significant and unavoidable impact in regard to conflict with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan’s VMT
policy found in the SSF GPU EIR, but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to conflict with an air quality plan than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains SU w/ MM): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU
EIR Impact AIR-2 and the significant and unavoidable conclusion related to criteria air pollutants and
ozone precursors. SSF GPU MM AIR-1a would apply to the project to control fugitive dust during
construction activities. The project would be required to implement a project-specific TDM program,
which would serve to reduce operational emissions, as required under of the SSF Zoning Ordinance
Section 20.400.005 (adopted to satisfy SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, which applied to the City and not
individual projects).
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact AIR-2 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF GPU,
criteria air pollutants would be above significance thresholds. During construction activities, projects
would be required to implement SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, resulting in a less than significant impact with
mitigation during construction. However, during operations, with the increase in VMT as discussed
above, the buildout would exceed the plan-level significance threshold for criteria air pollutants,
resulting in a significant impact. Even with the City’s TDM ordinance adopted to satisfy SSF GPU MM
TRANS-1, the VMT would have a greater increase than the population growth, which would be
considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts that would occur
during construction of the project and long-term impacts due to project operation. BAAQMD’s
adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction or operation of 54 pounds per
day or operational emissions of 10 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOx), (ROG) or suspended
particulate matter (PM2.5) and 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10.
Construction and operational emissions for the project were modeled using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0. Project details were entered into the model
including the proposed land uses and generators, TDM plan trip reductions, Peninsula Clean Energy
carbon intensity factors, demolition/earthwork volumes, and construction schedule. Model defaults
were otherwise used. The CalEEMod inputs and outputs are included in Attachment B.
Page 26 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would involve excavation, site preparation, building erection, paving,
and finishing and landscaping. Although these construction activities would be temporary, they
would have the potential to cause both nuisance and health-related air quality impacts.
The results from emissions modeling for construction are summarized in Table 1 (and included in full
in Attachment B).
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction (Pounds per Day)
Description ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5 *
Average Daily Emissions 6 8 <1 <1
BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
* Applies to exhaust emissions only Source: CalEEMod, see Attachment B, converted from tons per year to pounds per day across the active construction days (approximately 566 days).
Construction-period emissions levels are below BAAQMD thresholds presented in Table 1. However,
BAAQMD considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact
associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of
construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions and dust for all projects,
regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds. These basic measures are included
in SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, which would implement BAAQMD-recommended best management
practices to further reduce construction-period criteria pollutant impacts.
SSF GPU MM
AIR-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor]
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
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 27
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.
Note that the brackets in the above mitigation measure show where text has been revised from the
original measure to make clear that it would be implemented by this project. With implementation
of SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, the impact related to construction-period criteria pollutant impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to construction-period criteria air pollutants than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Operational Emissions
Emissions from operation of the project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the
region. Emissions of air pollutants associated with the project were predicted using CalEEMod as
discussed above. Results of operational emissions modeling are included in full in Attachment B and
summarized in Table 2, below.
Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations
Description ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2025 Project Emissions, Annual (tons/yr) 2.11 1.27 1.38 0.39
Project Generator Emissions (tons/yr) 0.17 0.73 0.03 0.03
Total Operational Emissions (tons/yr) 2.28 2.00 1.40 0.42
BAAQMD Annual
Significance Thresholds (tons/yr) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Annual Threshold? No No No No
Project Emissions, Daily (lbs/day) 12.48 10.96 7.69 2.28
BAAQMD Daily
Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Daily Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, see Attachment B. Average daily emissions were calculated by converting from tons per year to
pounds/days.
As summarized in Table 2, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed applicable
thresholds, and the project would not result in individually significant impacts from operational
Page 28 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
criteria pollutant emissions. However, the project would contribute to the increase in VMT that
creates a significant and unavoidable impact found in the SSF GPU EIR, but as discussed above,
would not exacerbate the previously identified impact.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to operational criteria air pollutants than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Sensitive Receptors
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would not
exacerbate SSF GPU EIR Impact AIR-3, and SSF GPU MM AIR-1b would not be necessary to reach a
less-than-significant conclusion related to sensitive receptor pollutant exposure as there are no
sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact AIR-3 that new development in the project area could
have a potentially significant impact on sensitive receptors, as new developments could result in
construction activities near sensitive receptors, or new residences could place sensitive receptors
near sources of pollutants. The SSF GPU EIR further concluded that SSF GPU MM AIR-1b, requiring a
project specific health risk assessment for projects that bring sensitive receptors and potential
sources of pollution within 1,000 feet of each other, would result in a less than significant impact
with mitigation.
The project would not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, nor would it introduce
new sensitive receptors to the project site. SSF GPU MM AIR-1b is only applicable to projects within
1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, and therefore would not apply to this project. With no sensitive
receptors within the 1,000-foot range, the impact of the construction and operation of the project
on sensitive receptors would not be significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to sensitive receptors than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Odors
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact AIR-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to odors, as the project is not a land use
that has the potential to generate substantial odor complaints.
As discussed in the SSF GPU EIR under Impact AIR-4, the SSF Zoning Ordinance restricts uses,
activities and processes that produce objectionable odors, concluding that impacts in regard to
odors would be less than significant.
As discussed above, the project would not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive odor receptors.
The project would be required to comply with any applicable regulations in the SSF Zoning
Ordinance. The intended uses of office, technology, and/or R&D are not the types of uses that
generate frequent or substantial odors, and the impact related to odors would not be significant.
Odors from construction activities would be transient and temporary in nature and, per Chapter
20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance, are exempt from odor standards.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 29
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to odors than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 30 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
C. Biological Resources
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Special-Status
Species
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ BIO-1: Special-status Species,
Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds
LTS w/MM
b. Riparian/Sensitive Habitat LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Wetlands or
Aquatic Habitats
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ N/A NI
d. Wildlife Corridors/
Nursery Sites
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ BIO-1: Special-status Species,
Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds
LTS w/MM
e. Conflict with Local
Biological Policies
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
f. Conflict with
Adopted
Conservation Plans
LTS ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Special-Status Species
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU
EIR Impact BIO-1, the requirement for SSF GPU MM BIO-1, and the less-than-significant with
mitigation conclusion related to nesting birds, as there are trees on and adjacent to the site with the
potential for nesting birds to be present.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-1 that new development in the project area could be
potentially significant, as there are 48 special-status plant species and 51 special-status animals
recorded as being within five miles or less of the planning area. Particularly sensitive areas include
riparian habitat, near the shoreline, or in the hillsides or San Bruno Mountain. To reduce the impact
on special-status species to less than significant, SSF GPU MM BIO-1 was established.
SSF GPU 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 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
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 31
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.
Consistent with conclusions in the SSF GPU EIR, some special-status bird species could potentially
nest in trees on or adjacent to the project site. The loss of any active nests due to construction noise
and activity would be in violation of federal and state laws and therefore new development would
require pre-construction nesting surveys.
The project site does not contain suitable habitat as designated in the SSF GPU EIR as a potential
home for most endangered animal species. The project site contains manmade structures, which
may be used as nesting habitat for a few endangered birds. The project site also contains trees, and
is adjacent to other lots that contain trees, which may provide nesting habitat for birds. For these
reasons SSF GPU MM BIO-1 would apply to this project, which requires a focused survey by a
qualified biologist, and that special-status species impacts are avoided or minimized, if such species
would be affected by the project. Consistent with the intent of the above mitigation measure, the
project would require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to ensure that development of the
project does not have a significant impact to special-status species.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to special-status species than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Riparian/Sensitive Habitat
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact BIO-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project site and adjacent land do not
contain riparian habitat or other sensitive communities.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-2 that the impact in regards to riparian and sensitive
habitats would be less than significant, as all new development is required to comply with all
applicable adopted State, federal and local regulations, as well as comply with the policies and
actions in the SSF GPU, and rules and regulations in the SSF Zoning Ordinance, which seek to
minimize impacts in areas with ecologically sensitive habitats and to enhance riparian habitat near
Colma Creek.
The project site does not contain riparian habitat, nor is it listed in the SSF GPU EIR as being located
in the Special ES Overlay District that has been identified as ecologically sensitive habitat. The
project site is a fully developed site surrounded by similar development. The closest ecologically
sensitive habitat to the project site is tidal marshes more than ¼-mile to the northeast. Colma Creek
is more than a mile away from the project site. Development of the project would not have a
significant impact on riparian or other sensitive habitat.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to riparian or sensitive habitat than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 32 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Wetlands or Aquatic Habitats
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-3
and SSF GPU MM BIO-3 would not apply to this project as there are no wetlands or waterway
features on or within impact range of the project site.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-3 that new development in the project area could be
potentially significant, as there are sensitive wetlands and aquatic habitats in the planning area,
including along the coastline of the Bay and parts of Colma Creek and San Bruno Creek. SSF GPU
MM BIO-3 requires projects to assess potential wetlands impacts and comply with permitting
processes of any jurisdictional waters if the project site contains those features or is within 150 feet
of the Bay or 80 feet of those Creeks. With implementation of SSF GPU MM BIO-3, requiring
assessment of potential wetland impacts, the impact of new development as described in the SSF
GPU would be less than significant with mitigation.
The closest body of water to the project site is the San Francisco Bay, approximately 1,700 feet to
the east. Colma Creek is more than a mile from the project site. As mapped in the SSF GPU EIR, there
are no wetlands or aquatic habitats within the vicinity of the project site. SSF GPU MM BIO-3, which
requires a professional assessment of potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters, would not
apply to this project. This project would have no impact on wetlands or jurisdictional waters.
Given the above analysis, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to wetlands or aquatic habitats than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Wildlife Corridors/Nursery Sites
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS w/ MM): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU
EIR Impact BIO-4, the requirement for SSF GPU MM BIO-1, and the less-than-significant with
mitigation conclusion related to wildlife corridors/nursery sites, as the existing and proposed trees at
the site would contribute to the urban forest canopy, which supports the movement and nesting of a
variety of migratory bird species.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-4 that new development in the project area could be
potentially significant, as there are wetlands, parks/open space, and creeks and drainages that
provide wildlife corridors and/or nursery sites that could be impacted by development. While the
project site does not contain wetlands, creeks, or parks, existing and proposed trees on the site
would contribute to the urban forest canopy and support the movement and nesting of a variety of
migratory bird species. SSF GPU MM BIO-1, shown in the Special-Status Species section, and SSF
GPU MM BIO-3, described under the Wetland or Aquatic Habitats section, would reduce the impact
of new development as described in the SSF GPU to less than significant with mitigation. As
discussed under Wetlands or Aquatic Habitats above, the project site does not contain wetlands or
creeks and SSF GPU MM BIO-3 would not be applicable to the project. As discussed under Special-
Status Species above, SSF GPU MM BIO-1 would be applicable to the project and would reduce the
impact of the project on wildlife corridors/nursery sites to less than significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to wildlife corridors or nursery sites than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 33
Conflict with Local Policies
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact BIO-5, and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with the City’s Tree Ordinance.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact BIO-5 that development as analyzed in the EIR would
have a less than significant impact on conflict with local policies, as all new development must
comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance.
There are 25 trees at the project site, about 15 of which may qualify as protected under City
ordinance, requiring a permit for removal and replacement. The exact number of trees to be
removed is still being determined, but would include all trees in the development area, while eight
trees along the trail and five trees at the western tip may be able to be retained. The applicant is
required to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the City’s
Municipal Code) as applicable, which requires demonstrating adequate replacement and obtaining a
permit for removal of “protected” trees. New trees would be planted as part of the project to
comply with SSF GPU Policy ES-4.2, which requires each removed tree be replaced with three new
trees. With compliance with the City’s mandatory Tree Ordinance, the project would not have a
significant impact.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to conflict with local policies than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Conflict with Conservation Plans
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact BIO-6 would
not apply to the project, as it is not in the areas covered by local conservation plans, and the project
would result in no impact.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact BIO-6 that new development in the planning area would
have a less than significant impact with respect to conflict with conservation plans. There are two
areas in the City that contain sensitive habitat that is covered by a conservation plan, Sign Hill Park
and San Bruno Mountain State Park; and any area near the Bay that is subject to tidal action is under
the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Development
near these areas would require site specific biological assessments to ensure that all appropriate
regulations are followed, reducing any impacts to less than significant.
The project site is not within or adjacent to any of the areas covered by a conservation plan. There
are no other local, regional, or State conservation plans that are applicable to the planning area
included in the SSF GPU EIR, including the project site. The project would have no impact on conflict
with conservation plans.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to conflict with conservation plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 34 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
D. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Historical
Resources
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Archaeological Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Human Remains LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d,e. Tribal Cultural Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Historical Resources
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact CUL-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the site does not contain a historic aged
structure.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact CUL-1 that any development planned in the City under the
General Plan buildout would have a less than significant impact on historical resources, as each new
development proposed that would alter a historic aged building (defined as 45 years old or older)
would need to be individually reviewed to ensure that the development would be in compliance
with applicable federal and local regulations.
The project site is not in a historic district and does not contain historic-age structures. The existing
warehouse building on the project site is not historic age, as the warehouse was built in 1986. There
would be no impact on any historical aged structures.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to historical resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Archeological Resources
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact CUL-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with regulations intended to minimize impacts to archaeological resources.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact CUL-2 that new development in the planning area would
have a less than significant impact on archeological resources as all new development is required to
comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU, designed to protect archeological resources
upon discovery.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 35
While there are no archaeological resources at the project site, any ground disturbance, including
that proposed as a part of project construction activities, would have the potential to discover and
disturb unknown archaeological resources.
SSF GPU Policy ES-10.3 requires development proposals be referred to the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC), Native American Heritage Committee (NAHC), and local tribes for review and
recommendation. These last two items are discussed under the Tribal Cultural Resources topic
below. A records search was requested from NWIC. In their letter dated May 19, 2023, (see
Attachment C) the NWIC concluded that there was a moderate to high potential for archeological
resources to be discovered on the site. SSF GPU Policy ES-10.1 requires the City to maintain formal
procedures for minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeological resources, such as worker
training and halting work upon discovery and contacting appropriate experts/authorities. The
project would be required to comply with these applicable procedures, which will be imposed as
conditions of project approval. If significant historic or prehistoric archeological resources are
discovered during construction or grading activities, SSF GPU Policy ES-10.5 requires work to stop
within 100 feet until properly examined. With mandatory adherence to applicable regulations,
impacts related to accidental discovery of archeological resources would be less than significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to archaeological resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Human Remains
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact CUL-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with applicable regulations and policies regarding accidental discovery of human remains.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact CUL-3 that new development in the planning area would
have a less than significant impact as all new development is required to comply with actions and
policies in the SSF GPU, the SSFMC and other applicable State regulations, such as Section 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code/Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code that deal with
discovery of human remains.
While there are no known human remains at the project site, any ground disturbance, including that
proposed as a part of project construction activities, would have the potential to discover and
disturb unknown human remains. The project would be required to comply with mandatory
procedures pursuant to applicable regulations of the Public Resources Code in the event that human
remains are discovered, and impacts related to accidental discovery of human remains would be
less than significant for this project.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to human remains than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impacts CUL-4 and CUL-5 and the less-than-significant conclusions as the project would be required
Page 36 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
to comply with all applicable policies and actions of the SSF GPU intended to minimize impacts to
tribal cultural resources.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts CUL-4 and CUL-5 that new development in the planning
area would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources as all new development is
required to comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU designed to protect tribal cultural
resources upon discovery, including SSF GPU Policies ES-10.1, ES-10.3, and ES-10.5 as discussed
above.
SSF GPU Policy ES-10.3 requires development proposals be referred to the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC), Native American Heritage Committee (NAHC), and local tribes for review and
recommendation. A record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the project and
indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see Attachment C).
While no tribes have requested consultation for projects in this area, notice was sent to listed tribes
on July 24, 2023, per recommendation of the NAHC. No comments on the project or requests for
consultation were received in return.
A records search was requested from NWIC. In their letter dated May 19, 2023, (see Attachment C)
the NWIC concluded that there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American
resources to be located in the vicinity. While not expected, standard procedures related to
unexpected accidental discovery as required by SSF GPU Policy ES-10.1 and ES-10.5 (discussed in
more detail under the Archaeological Resources topic above) would be followed per conditions of
project approval.
The project would be required to comply with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources
Code in the event of discovery of Native American human remains.
With adherence to applicable procedures and regulations as detailed above, impacts related to
accidental discovery of tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to tribal cultural resources than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 37
E. Energy
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Energy Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Conflict with State
or Local Plans
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Energy Resources
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact ENER-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations and building codes that minimize energy use in new buildings.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact ENER-1 that new development in the planning area
would have a less than significant impact on energy resources during both construction and
operation, as all new development is required to comply with Climate Action Plan (CAP) Actions, and
rules and regulations in the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance designed to reduce energy use. SSF GPU
Policy LU-8.4 requires street trees at new developments. SSF GPU Policy SA-28.5 requires the
incorporation of sustainable and environmentally sensitive design and equipment, energy
conservation features, water conservation measures and drought-tolerant or equivalent
landscaping, and sustainable stormwater management features. Section 15.26.010 of the SSF
Municipal Code adopts the California Green Building Code by reference with certain local “Reach
Code” amendments, which has updated to the 2022 Edition since the SSF GPU EIR was written.
The project would include short-term demolition and construction activities that would consume
energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment), gasoline (e.g.,
vehicle trips by construction workers), and electricity (e.g., power tools). Energy would also be used
for conveyance of water used in dust control, transportation and disposal of construction waste, and
energy used in production and transport of construction materials.
During operation, energy demand from the project would include fuel consumed by employees’ and
delivery vehicles, and electricity consumed by the proposed structures, including lighting, research
equipment, water conveyance, heating and air conditioning.
Table 3 shows the project’s estimated total construction energy consumption and annual energy
consumption.
As summarized in Table 3, project construction would require what equates to 19,987 MMBtu of
energy use. The project would implement construction management practices per SSF GPU MM AIR-
1a (see Section B: Air Quality). While focused on emissions and dust reduction, the construction
management practices would also reduce energy consumption through anti-idling measures and
Page 38 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
proper maintenance of equipment. The project would comply with the requirements of the
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) to divert a minimum of 65 percent of
construction and demolition debris. By reusing or recycling construction and demolition debris,
energy that would be used in the extraction, processing and transportation of new resources is
reduced. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of
energy during construction, and the project’s construction energy consumption.
As also summarized in Table 3, project annual energy consumption would equate to 36,050 MMBtu
of energy use. The project’s required TDM program (see Section N: Transportation) will also include
various measures designed to reduce total vehicle trips, which would reduce the consumption of
fuel for vehicles; the calculations in Table 3 include a 21% reduction in VMT to account for the TDM
program. The roof of the parking garage would hold solar panels to reduce the project’s reliance on
nonrenewable energy sources.
Table 3: Construction and Operational Energy Usage
Source Energy Consumption
Amount and Units Converted to MMBtu
Construction Energy Use (Total)
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips
(Gasoline)
39,448 gallons 4,331 MMBtu
Construction Equipment and
Vendor/Hauling Trips (Diesel)
113,963 gallons 15,656 MMBtu
Total Construction Energy Use 19,987 MMBtu
Operational Vehicle Fuel Use (Gross Annual)
Gasoline 130,726 gallons 14,352 MMBtu
Diesel 14,085 gallons 1,935 MMBtu
Operational Built Environment (Gross Annual)
Electricity 5.79 GWh 19,763 MMBtu
Total Gross Annual Operational Energy Use 36,050 MMBtu
Note: The energy use reported in this table is gross operational energy use for the proposed project with
no reduction to account for energy use of existing uses.
Source: Energy Calculations included as Attachment C
While representing a change from the former uses at the site, the project is consistent with the type
of development in the area and allowed under the land use designation and zoning and would be
replacing less efficient buildings.
Therefore, although the project would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not
result in a significant impact related to energy consumption in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
manner.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 39
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to energy use than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Conflict with State or Local Plans
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact ENER-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project is within the SSF GPU planning
area and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, which do not conflict with
State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact ENER-2 that new development in the planning area
would have a less than significant impact, as the new development would not conflict with or
obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, as all new development is
required to comply with the policies and actions in the SSF GPU, CAP Actions, and rules and
regulations in the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance designed to reduce energy use. These local
regulations do not conflict with any applicable State plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and therefore development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to have a
significant impact on conflict with State or Local energy conservation plans.
The project site is within the SSF GPU planning area and would be required to comply with all
applicable regulations in the CAP and adhere to development standards in the SSFMC and Zoning
Ordinance, and therefore impacts related to conflicts with State and local energy plans would not be
significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to conflict with state or local plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 40 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
F. Geology and Soils
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Seismic Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Soil Erosion LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Unstable Soil LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d. Expansive Soil LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
e. Septic Tanks LTS ☒ ☐ -- NI
f. Geologic Features LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ N/A NI
Discussion
This section utilizes information from the Preliminary Geotechnical Site Assessment prepared for the
applicants by Langan Engineering, dated October 15, 2021, which is available as part of the project
application materials.
Seismic Hazards
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact GEO-1, and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations regarding construction and geotechnical engineering.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-1 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would
not have a significant impact on seismic hazards, as all new development projects would be required
to comply with the current California Building Code (CBC), as well as any other SSF GPU policies and
actions and the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all contain measures to minimize danger from
seismic hazards. Chapter 15.08 (California Building Code) of the SSFMC, which implements the CBC
and includes certain local amendments to address special conditions within the City including
geological and topographical features, requires that foundations and other structural support
features would be designed to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking,
liquefaction, and subsidence.
Consistent with conclusions in the SSF GPU EIR, while there are no known faults at the project site,
the region is known to be seismically active and the project would need to comply with the CBC and
building permit requirements as required by the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, and by policies and
actions in the SSF GPU, specifically Action CR-4.4.1, which requires projects to prepare site-specific
soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer, and to incorporate the
recommended actions during construction.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 41
The project site is not in a designated liquefaction hazard zone, although the boundary of the
liquefaction hazard zone runs along the eastern boundary of the site.
The project’s Geotechnical Investigation (prepared for the applicant by Langan, dated August 15,
2023, and available as part of the project application materials) identified a potential for landslide
risk from adjacent slopes during a seismic event due to potentially liquefiable soil layers within the
undocumented fill and marsh deposits underlying the adjacent slope. These potentially liquefiable
soil layers are thin and discontinuous, rather than an unvarying problem in all areas. Recent
development projects at the top of the slope have installed sheer keys along the slope to prevent
instability below their building footprints. Based on an analysis using current field investigation,
previous field explorations by others on the upslope side, geologic interpretation, and engineering
analyses, there is a potential of significant slope movements during major earthquake shaking
involving the project site. Due to the discontinuous nature of the potentially liquefiable layer,
depending on conditions encountered, the Geotechnical Investigation recommends either on-site
improvement of the potentially liquefiable soil or additional shear key/buttress(es) at the base of
the slope, similar to the solutions at the uphill properties. The specifics of the final landslide solution
would be determined at the time of final Geotechnical Report, which would occur during the full
design stage/building permits/construction as standard practice. The Geotechnical Investigation
concludes that the landscape risk could be appropriately addressed through implementation of one
of these solutions.
Based on the foregoing geotechnical analysis, any potential seismic hazards would be minimized by
following project-specific geotechnical recommendations, as required under SSF GPU Action CR-
4.4.1, including a solution for landslide risk as detailed in the project’s Conditions of Approval.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to seismic hazards than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Soil Erosion
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact GEO-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations intended to minimize erosion during construction and operation of
new development.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-2 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would
not have a significant impact on soil erosion, as all new development projects would be required to
comply with SSF GPU policies and actions and the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all contain
measures to reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil. SSF GPU Policy ES-7.3 requires new projects to
meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design, stormwater
treatment, stormwater infiltration, peak flow reduction, and trash capture.
Construction activities, particularly grading and site preparation, can result in erosion and loss of
topsoil. The project also proposes additional excavation for a basement under the office/R&D
building. While intentional removal of soil from the site would not be considered erosion, the
disturbance of the site could result in the potential for unintended erosion.
Page 42 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
The project would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General
Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Coverage under the
NPDES Permit would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and various site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil
during site demolition and construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit and BMPs during
demolition and construction such as straw wattles, silt fencing, concrete washouts, and inlet
protection during construction would reduce impacts resulting from loss of topsoil. The project
would be required to comply with SSFMC Section 15.56.030, which would require the development
of the project site to control filling, grading, and dredging which may increase flood damage.
Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and
irrigation plans. With the implementation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan to prevent erosion,
sedimentation, and loss of topsoil during and following construction – which are required under
existing regulations – the soil erosion impacts of the project would not be significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to soil erosion than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Unstable Soils
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impacts GEO-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations regarding construction and geotechnical engineering.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-3 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would
not have a significant impact due to unstable soils, as all new development projects would be
required to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and
actions in the SSF GPU, the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all address development on areas
containing unstable geologic units or in areas where soil is unstable. SSF GPU Action CR-4.4.1
requires projects to prepare site-specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the
City Engineer, and to incorporate the recommended actions during construction.
The project site is covered with approximately 10 to 20 feet of undocumented fill, followed by 20 to
35 feet of stiff to hard clay with some layers of dense to very dense clayey sand, underlain by
bedrock. The undocumented fill could result in settlement following building construction due to the
weight of the buildings. Appropriate foundation design based on ground conditions, after excavation
for the basement for the office/R&D building, would incorporate project-specific geotechnical
recommendations as approved by the City Engineer. The project would be required to comply with
the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and actions in the SSF GPU, the
SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which would keep unstable soils from having a significant impact on
the project.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to unstable soils than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 43
Expansive Soils
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact GEO-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to expansive soils as the project would
be required to comply with all applicable regulations.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact GEO-4 that the proposed buildout of the SSF GPU would
not have a significant impact due to expansive soils, as all new development projects would be
required to comply with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and
actions in the SSF GPU, the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all address development on areas
containing expansive soils. SSF GPU Action CR-4.4.1 requires projects to prepare site-specific soils
and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer, and to incorporate the
recommended actions during construction.
The Geotechnical Site Assessment concluded that if undocumented fill remains on the project site, it
would have the potential for hazards due to expansive soil. The project would be required to comply
with the CBC and building permit requirements as required by policies and actions in the SSF GPU,
the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, including any project-specific geotechnical recommendations to
address ground improvement and proper design and construction techniques to minimize impacts
of expansive soils on the project.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to expansive soils than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Septic Tanks
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact GEO-5 would
not apply to the project, as the project would not use septic tanks, and there would be no impact.
The project would connect to the City sewer system and would not use any septic tanks, therefore
there would be no impact related to septic tanks.
Geologic Features
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would be
consistent with SSF GPU EIR Impact GEO-6, but SSF GPU MM GEO-6 would not apply to this project,
as it is not located in the Colma Foundation or Merced Formation. The impact would be reduced to
less than significant as the project would be required to comply with Section 5097 of the Public
Resources Code.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact GEO-6 that the new development included in the SSF GPU
could have a potentially significant impact on geologic features or paleontological resources, as
there are potentially fossiliferous areas in two areas of the planning area, the Colma Foundation and
the Merced Formation. SSF GPU MM GEO-6 requires paleontological monitoring during ground
disturbing activities in these areas, reducing the potential impact to less than significant with
mitigation.
The project site is not located on either the Colma Foundation or Merced Formation. The project
site is located in an area with low paleontological potential and is covered with a layer of
Page 44 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
undocumented fill, but excavation for the basement might disturb native soils. If unknown
paleontological resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the project would be
required to comply with Public Resources Code 5097, minimizing potential impacts on unknown
paleontological resources.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to geologic features than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 45
G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. GHG Emissions LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Conflict with GHG
Reduction Plans
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
GHG Emissions
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact GHG-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would comply with the City’s
Climate Action Plan.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact GHG -1 that the buildout planned for in the SSF GPU
would have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction as
all new projects would be required to comply with SSF GPU MM AIR-1a, SSFMC and SSF GPU actions
and policies that reduce GHG emissions during construction.
The project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations during construction,
including anti-idling of diesel equipment, salvaging and redirecting materials from demolition, and
the provisions of SSSF GPU MM AIR-1a. With regulatory compliance, the project would not have a
significant impact on GHG emissions during construction.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded that the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact on GHG
emissions. The SSF GPU EIR projected the GHG emissions would be 3.55 MT CO2e per service
population in 2040, which is less than the 4.0 MT threshold that was used at the time of analysis.
Since the SSF GPU EIR, BAAQMD issued new Guidelines (April 2022). For purposes of assessment of
a General Plan with a Climate Action Plan (CAP) component, the new threshold requires the CAP to
meet the statewide GHG reduction targets of 40 percent by 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality
by 2045. The new threshold also requires a project to be consistent with certain criteria options,
which among others include being consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the
criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
The City’s CAP was updated as a part of the SSF GPU. The updated 2022 CAP aligns the City with
Statewide emission reduction targets and a reduction strategy to reduce GHG emissions by 40
percent below its 2005 baseline by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. As an adopted GHG
reduction plan that quantifies existing and projected GHG emissions, including from specific
identified actions with performance standards and monitoring mechanisms, the CAP meets the
criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) as a qualified GHG reduction plan against
which a project can be compared for streamlined review under CEQA as applicable. While the
updated BAAQMD guidelines would not constitute new information for purposes of CEQA including
Page 46 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
analysis under Section 15164/15183, it can be noted that the SSF GPU would have been determined
to have a less than significant impact under the new plan-level thresholds as well as the plan has the
goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, and reducing emissions 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2040.
Similarly, it is worth noting that under either the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines in place at the time of
the SSF GPU EIR or the current 2022 Guidelines, a project within an area with a qualified CAP would
be determined to have a less-than-significant impact if the project is consistent with the CAP. As
described below, the project would be consistent with the CAP and thus would not have new or
substantially more sever impacts or impacts based on peculiar circumstances unique to the project.
There is not currently a checklist for development projects, but the following strategies and actions
are indirectly applicable to this proposed project through action and enforcement by the City:
BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of
financial and development process incentives (e.g., Expedited permitting, FAR increase,
etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard.
Supports – The project would be required to meet or exceed applicable Title 24
requirements.
BNC 2.1 All-Electric Reach Code for Nonresidential New Construction. Implement residential
all-electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new
construction.
Supports – The project is designed to operate as all-electric.
BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs. Update zoning and building codes to require alterations or
additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply with minimum
CALGreen requirements.
Supports – The project would meet minimum applicable CALGreen requirements.
TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City ’s TDM
Ordinance.
Supports – The project would incorporate a TDM program that follows the City’s TDM
Ordinance.
TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy. Ensure that all roadway and development projects are
designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development
projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential
impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements
identified in the Active South City Plan.
Supports – The project would enhance the streetscape of Forbes Boulevard by widening the
northern sidewalk, and striping bicycle conflict zone markings at driveways consistent with
General Plan Goals MOB-1: South San Francisco prioritizes safety in all aspects of
transportation planning and engineering, MOB-2: South San Francisco provides a
multimodal network with convenient choices for everyone, and MOB-5: South San Francisco
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 47
residents have easy access to play, fitness, and active transportation networks, and the
Active South City Plan. A pedestrian and bicycle connection would be provided to the multi-
use trail along the project’s frontage.
WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new
construction and major renovations, comparable to CalGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards.
Supports – The project would be required to meet the CALGreen and the Title 24 Building
Code, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems.
Using the current GHG thresholds, the project would be compliant with the City’s CAP, meeting
Criteria B of BAAQMD’s thresholds.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to GHG emissions than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The current project would not change Impact GHG-2 or
the less-than-significant conclusion related to consistency with GHG reduction plans.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact GHG-2 that the buildout planned for in the SSF GPU would
have a less than significant impact on consistency with applicable plans to reduce GHG emissions, as
all new projects would be required to comply with the City’s updated 2022 CAP, the SSFMC and
Zoning Ordinance, and applicable SSF GPU actions and policies, which are all consistent with State
and regional GHG reduction plans. Therefore, development under the SSF GPU was determined not
to have the potential to significantly impact consistency with GHG reduction plans.
The project site is within the SSF GPU, and therefore must comply with all State, regional, and local
GHG reduction plans, and would not significantly impact consistency with GHG reduction plans.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to consistency with GHG reduction plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 48 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Routine Hazardous
Materials Use
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Risk of Upset LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Hazardous
Materials within a
¼-mile of a School
LTS ☒ ☐ -- NI
d. Hazardous
Materials Site
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
e. Airport Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
f. Emergency Access
Routes
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Routine Hazardous Materials Use
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HAZ-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials as the project would be required to comply with applicable
regulations related to hazardous materials handling.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-1 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact on routine hazardous materials use, as all new development projects would be
required to comply with applicable federal and State regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and
actions and the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all contain measures to reduce the risk to the
public or the environment from the routine handling of hazardous materials. Federal, State, and
regional agencies that regulate hazardous materials include the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), local Certified Unified Program Agency
(local CUPA), and BAAQMD.
It is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances
considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline. However, all
construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws, ordinances, and
procedures.
R&D uses that could occupy the proposed project, such as biotech and pharmaceutical research
laboratories, typically use limited quantities of materials considered to be biological hazards and/or
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 49
chemical hazards. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Division enforces regulations
pertaining to safe handling and proper storage of hazardous materials to prevent or reduce the
potential for injury to human health and the environment. Occupational safety standards exist in
federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in
the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA)
is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety
in the handling and use of hazardous materials. Depending on the amounts and types of hazardous
materials being used, further agencies may have applicable regulations. Given the strict regulations
that would minimize any safety or environmental concerns related to the routine handling of
hazardous materials, the project would not have a significant impact.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to routine hazardous materials use than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Risk of Upset
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HAZ-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to hazardous materials upset risk as
the project site does not contain contaminated soil.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-2 that the proposed buildout analyzed for the SSF
GPU would not have a significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to
comply with applicable federal and State regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and actions and the
Zoning Ordinance, which all contain measures to reduce the risk to the public or the environment
from the accidental upset of hazardous materials.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site was conducted by EBI Consulting for the
applicant on March 16, 2022, which is available as part of the project application materials. The
report concluded that there was no evidence of current or historical environmental conditions that
would require regulatory oversight or additional safety measures to protect workers or the public
during project construction due to contaminated soil or water at the site, nor is the project site on
the Cortese list as a location of hazardous materials release. The project would be required to
comply with the California Code of Regulations. Title 8 contains requirements for public and worker
protection, including equipment requirements and accident prevention. If excavated soil is found to
contain previously unknown contaminants, the soil would be regulated under Title 22.
During construction, the project would need a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (see
Hydrology and Water Quality section), which must include measures for erosion and sediment
controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved
local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion, maintenance responsibilities, and non-
stormwater management controls. The Best Management Practices in the SWPPP include measures
to prevent spills and require on-site materials for cleanup. With implementation of an approved
SWPPP and compliance with regulations, the project would not have a significant impact with regard
to risk of upset of hazardous materials.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to risk of upset than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 50 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Hazardous Materials Near Schools
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact HAZ-3 would
not apply to the project, as the project site is not within a ¼ mile of a school.
The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school site. There would be no impact.
Hazardous Materials Site
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HAZ-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to a known hazardous materials site as
the project would be required to comply with applicable regulations listed in the SSF GPU EIR.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-4 that the proposed SSF GPU buildout would not
have a significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to comply with
applicable federal and State regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and actions and the Zoning
Ordinance, which all contain measures to reduce the risk to the public or the environment from
contaminated sites during construction activities.
The project site is not on the Cortese list, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed
at the site did not find any indications of past or present contamination. If unexpectedly
contaminated soils were discovered during construction activities, the handling, transportation, and
disposal of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the requirements and regulations
set forth by the City, EPA, OSHA, USDOT, DTSC, Caltrans, CHP, local CUPA, and BAAQMD. With
compliance with all applicable regulations, any potential impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to hazardous materials sites than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Airport Hazards
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HAZ-5 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the proposed heights under the project
remain within height levels considered safe in relation to the airport.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-5 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact in regard to airport hazards, as all new development projects would be required
to comply with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions and the Zoning Ordinance. The SSF GPU
includes policies and actions that minimize the exposure of people working in the East of 101 area to
a safety hazard or excessive noise from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), including SSF
GPU Policy SA-21.3 to allow building heights in the East of 101 area up to but not exceeding the
maximum limits permitted under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
The project is located in an area with a maximum allowable height of 479 feet above mean sea level.
Factoring in the height of the site of approximately 20 feet above mean sea level, the proposed
project would reach heights of about 174 feet above mean sea level plus an additional
approximately 17 feet of rooftop elements, all of which would be well below the FAA height limit at
the site of 479 feet. The project is consistent with airport-related building safety policies identified in
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 51
the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), including avoidance of potential flight hazards such
as laser displays, searchlights, radar, etc., and therefore would not have a significant impact. 3
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to airport hazards than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Emergency Access Routes
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HAZ-6 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project is within the planned buildout
of the SSF GPU.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HAZ-6 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact, as current evacuation routes have sufficient capacity for the planned buildout,
and the San Mateo County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is updated regularly. As new
development occurs, the EOP would be updated to ensure it accommodates the subsequent growth,
and therefore development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to
significantly impact emergency access routes.
The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency
access to the site or surrounding area. The proposed project would be designed to comply with the
California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements that require on site access for
emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval.
No substantial obstruction in public rights-of-way has been proposed with the project’s construction
activities. However, any construction activities can result in temporary intermittent roadway
obstructions, but these would be handled through standard procedures with the City as part of the
building permit application/issuance process to ensure adequate clearance is maintained. The
project is part of the anticipated growth in the East of 101 area analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR and
therefore is part of the less than significant impact to emergency access routes.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to emergency access routes than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
3 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, including Exhibit IV-14,
and pages IV-59 to IV-60. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf
Page 52 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
I. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts Related To:
OPSP EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to OPSP
EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Water Quality LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Groundwater LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Alter Drainage LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d. Inundation LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
e. Water Plans LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Water Quality
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HYD-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations listed in the SSF GPU EIR.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-1 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact on water quality during anticipated construction activities, dewatering or
operations. All new development projects would be required to comply with all applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations, as well as SSF GPU policies and actions, CAP
Actions, and the SSF Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, which all contain measures to protect
water quality during construction. All new development projects that require dewatering during
excavation or trenching would be required to comply with mandatory National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and the SSFMC during dewatering activities. All
new development would be required to comply with federal, State, regional and local stormwater
requirements, and SSF GPU policies and actions, the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, and CAP Actions
related to stormwater.
Construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through erosion and through
debris and oil/grease carried in runoff which could result in pollutants and siltation entering
stormwater runoff and downstream receiving waters if not properly managed. The project would be
required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General
Construction Permit) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Coverage under this
permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and
approval by the City. At a minimum, the SWPPP would include a description of construction
materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact
stormwater; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best
management practices (BMPs); and an inspection and monitoring program. Furthermore, the
County of San Mateo’s Water Pollution Prevention Program would require the project site to
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 53
implement BMPs during project construction to reduce pollution carried by stormwater such as
keeping sediment on site using perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet protection and proper
management of construction materials, chemicals, and wastes on site. Additional BMPs required by
SSFMC Section 14.04.180 would also be implemented during project construction. Per standard City
procedures, compliance with SWPPP requirements and BMPs would be verified during the
construction permitting process.
While the project would increase the impervious surface area of the site from approximately 89,000
square feet to approximately 99,000 square feet, the project would meet federal, State, regional
and local stormwater requirements pertaining to site design, stormwater treatment, and
stormwater infiltration, and would have not have a significant impact on water quality.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to water quality than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Groundwater
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HYD-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply
with all applicable stormwater regulations.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-2 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact on groundwater, as all new development projects would be required to comply
with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all
contain measures to maximize stormwater infiltration and rainwater retention and minimize
impacts to groundwater recharge. SSF GPU Policy ES-7.3 requires new development and
redevelopment projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements,
including site design, stormwater treatment, and stormwater infiltration. SSFMC Section 14.04.134
(Low Impact Development (LID) requirements) requires that all regulated projects implement LID
requirements as specified in NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s
predevelopment hydrology.
The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, policies and
actions of the SSF GPU, SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance. The project site is not in a flood overlay zone,
which has stricter regulations to minimize impacts on groundwater recharge. The project would
comply with stormwater drainage requirements, including bio-retention areas to address both
quality and volumes of runoff and is consistent with expected use of the site in basin planning. The
project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, and would not have a significant impact related to groundwater.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to groundwater than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Alter Drainage
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HYD-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply
with the applicable regulations related to stormwater drainage.
Page 54 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-3 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact from altered drainage patterns leading to erosion and siltation, as all new
development projects would be required to comply with applicable State Water Board permits, SSF
GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all contain measures to
manage sites during construction and manage stormwater in order to minimize erosion and
siltation. As discussed under the Water Quality section, projects that disturb more than one acre of
ground require development of a SWPPP, which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and
sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of
approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance
responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before
and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and
to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary.
The SSF GPU EIR determined that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact from
increased stormwater runoff or storm drain capacity, as all new development projects would be
required to comply with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC and Zoning
Ordinance, which all contain measures to maximize stormwater infiltration and rainwater retention,
which would reduce runoff. SSF GPU Policy ES-7.3 requires new development and redevelopment
projects to meet federal, State, regional, and local stormwater requirements, including site design,
stormwater treatment, and stormwater infiltration. SSFMC Chapter 14.04 contains regulations that
seek to minimize impacts from stormwater runoff and follow LID requirements.
The SSF GPU EIR determined that the proposed buildout would not have a significant impact from
flood flows, as all new development projects in flood hazard zones would be required to comply
with applicable SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all
contain measures to reduce the risk of flooding.
The project site is currently developed and consists of approximately 72% impervious surfaces. The
project would result in approximately 80% impervious surfaces. As discussed under the Inundation
topic below, the project is not located in a flood hazard zone and would therefore not redirect flood
waters. The project is proposing to remove any existing storm drainpipes and replace them with
new drainpipes along all four sides of the office/R&D building and along the front of the parking
garage. In compliance with City requirements, the project would implement LID stormwater
management best practices to minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration, including
using bioretention areas to manage stormwater on the project site. The project would be required
to limit flows into the public storm drain system to pre-project conditions (or less), in accordance
with City requirements.
Through compliance with applicable regulations, runoff from site would be the same or reduced
from that existing and would not cause erosion, siltation, pollution, or flooding and as discussed
above, changes to on-site conditions would meet applicable requirements and would not exceed
capacity of the stormwater drainage system or result in on- or off-site flooding. The project would
not cause a significant impact due to altered drainage.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to altered drainage than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 55
Inundation
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HYD-4 and the less-than-significant conclusions related to inundation as the project will not
place new structures within the 100-year flood hazard zone or a location with potential for flooding
due to levee or dam failure or sea level rise.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-4 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact on inundation, as all new development in flood hazard zones would be required to
comply with applicable regulations in the SSF GPU, SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, which all contain
construction standards to minimize flood hazards.
Based on SSF GPU EIR Exhibits 3.9-2 and 3.9-3, the project is not located within a 100-year flood
hazard zone, nor is the project site in an area for the potential for flooding from a dam or levee
failure or sea level rise by 2100. The project would not have a significant impact on inundation.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to inundation than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Water Plans
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact HYD-5 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact HYD-5 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact from conflict with water quality control plans or groundwater management plans,
as all new development projects would be required to comply with applicable State Water Board
permits, SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC and Zoning Ordinance, and therefore
development under the SSF GPU was determined not to have the potential to significantly impact
conflict with water plans.
The project would be required to comply with all applicable State Water Board permits, SSF GPU
policies and actions, and the SSF Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance. The project site is within the
GPU, and therefore does not have the potential for development to significantly impact conflicts
with water quality or groundwater management plans.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to water quality or groundwater management plans than analyzed in the SSF GPU
EIR.
Page 56 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
J. Land Use
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Division of an
Existing Community
LTS ☒ ☐ -- NI
b. Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Division of an Existing Community
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact LAND-1 would
not apply to the project, as the project site is not near an established community.
The project site is a currently developed commercial site, surrounded by like development in the
East of 101 area of the City. There are no established communities in the vicinity of the project site,
therefore there would be no impact.
Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact LUP-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion, as the project is compatible with land use as
specified in the SSF GPU.
The SSF GPU EIR found under Impact LUP-2 the Zoning Code Amendments and the land use as
updated in the SSF GPU to be a less than significant impact. Future development under the SSF GPU
would be required by the City to demonstrate consistency with applicable federal, State, and local
policies including those mitigating or avoiding environmental impacts through the mechanisms of
project permitting and approvals. The SSF GPU planned new development to be consistent with Plan
Bay Area 2050 and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) of the San Francisco
International Airport.
The project is consistent with the development type and density established by the SSF GPU and the
Zoning Code Amendments. The proposed FAR of 2.0 is allowable under the zoning standards
applicable to the project site with payment of a community benefits fee. The project would be
required to comply with all applicable federal, State and local environmental policies. The project’s
proposed height is compatible with the ALUCP with all project elements under 200 feet above mean
sea level compared to FAA height limits of 479 feet (see Airport Hazards topic under Section H:
Hazardous Materials for additional discussion). The project is consistent with development
anticipated under Plan Bay Area 2050 and the SSF GPU and therefore would not have a significant
impact.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 57
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to land use than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 58 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
K. Noise and Vibration
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Noise LTS
(construction)
LTS w/MM
(operations)
☒ ☐ N/A LTS
(construction)
LTS
(operations)
b. Vibration LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Airport Noise LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ N/A NI
Discussion
Noise (Construction)
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS for Construction): The project would be consistent with
SSF GPU EIR Impact NOI-1 during construction and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project
would be required to comply with Noise Ordinances for construction activities.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact NOI-1 that noise during construction of the new
development anticipated under the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact, as
construction activities would be restricted to certain days and times as detailed in the SSFMC and
policies and actions in the SSF GPU.
The project would be required to comply with all restrictions and regulations related to construction
activities, including hours and days when construction activities are authorized and not to exceed 90
decibels at a distance of 25 feet. With compliance with regulations, the project’s impact in regard to
construction noise would not be significant.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to construction noise than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Noise (Operations)
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS for Operation): The project
would not exacerbate Impact NOI-1 and SSF GPU MM NOI-1 would not apply to the project for the
operational period as there are no residential receptors within 300 feet of the project site.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact NOI-1 that noise caused by the new development
anticipated under the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact, as zoning restrictions and
acoustical design requirements for noise impacted areas would limit increased ambient noise, as
detailed in the SSFMC, Zoning Ordinance and policies and actions in the SSF GPU. The SSF GPU EIR
also established SSF GPU MM NOI-1 to reduce noise from commercial or industrial land uses within
300 feet of residential uses and exterior mechanical systems within 50 feet of residences. No
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 59
residential uses are located within these distances from the project site and therefore, SSF GPU MM
NOI-1 is not applicable to the proposed project.
The SSF GPU EIR also discussed traffic noise increases under this impact. A characteristic of noise is
that audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 decibels (dBA) or more, as this
level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change
of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor
environments. The SSF GPU EIR modeled traffic noise increases resulting from build-out under the
plan, and determined that roadways would experience cumulative increases up to 1.7 dBA, which
would be below the level that would be perceptible (5 dBA outdoors) and would therefore not result
in a significant traffic-related noise impact. This project would be consistent with the conclusions in
the SSF GPU EIR and would have a less than significant impact with respect to increases in traffic
noise.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to operational noise than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Vibration
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact NOI-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would be required to comply
with all regulations listed in the SSF GPU EIR during construction activities.
The SSF GPU EIR determined that vibration during construction of the new development anticipated
under the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact, as construction activities would be
required to take steps to reduce vibrations that have the potential to produce high groundborne
vibration levels as detailed in the SSFMC and policies and actions in the SSF GPU. SSF GPU Policy
NOI-2.1 requires a vibration impact analysis for any construction activities, located within 100-feet
of residential or sensitive receptors that require the use of pile driving or other construction
methods that have the potential to produce high groundborne vibration levels. SSF GPU Policy NOI-
3.1 requires vibration impact analysis for historic structure protection for construction activities
within 150 feet of historic structures. The project is not within 100-feet of residences or other
sensitive receptors, nor within 150 feet of historic structures that might be damaged by construction
generated vibrations, so neither of these policies would apply to the project.
The proposed uses of the project are not the type that will generate substantial groundborne
vibration during operations as they are proposed to be office/R&D/technology uses. The project
would not have a significant impact on groundborne vibration.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to vibration than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Airport Noise
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would not
exacerbate SSF GPU EIR Impact Noise-3 and SSF GPU MM NOI-3 would not apply to the project as
the project site is outside the 65-decibel contour line of the San Francisco International Airport.
Page 60 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact NOI-3 that noise from the San Francisco International
Airport would have a potentially significant impact, as portions of the planning area of the SSF GPU
is within the area substantially affected by airplane flyover noise, and requires SSF GPU MM NOI-3
to reduce noise impacts on affected projects.
The ALUCP notes that under State noise law (California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Division 2.5,
Chapter 6, Section 5006), the area in which an airport causes noise levels of 65 dBA or more that is
occupied by incompatible uses is called the “noise impact area.” As shown in Exhibit 3.11-2 of the
SSF GPU EIR, while the project site is within the boundary of the ALUCP, it is not within an area
exposed to 65 decibels or higher from the airport. Nor would it be considered an incompatible use
(such as a residence or hospital). SSF GPU MM NOI-3 would not be necessary to reach a less than
significant conclusion.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to airport noise than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 61
L. Population & Housing
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Population Growth LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Displacement of Housing or People LTS ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Population Growth
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact POP-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the potential for indirect population growth
due to increased employment is planned growth under the SSF GPU.
Under Impact POP-1, the SSF GPU EIR determined that residential and on-residential population
growth under buildout of the SSF GPU would be a less-than-significant impact because the SSF GPU
would be considered a long-range planning document, and therefore the population growth would
be planned. The SSF GPU EIR analyzed an increase in population of 40,068 by 2040, with related to
employment growth of 42,267 jobs.
The proposed project would provide approximately 821 jobs (calculated using the highest intensity
proposed use of an office, which would have approximately 300 square feet per employee) and
contribute to indirect population growth. This would be consistent with local and area planning and
would therefore not be considered unplanned growth. The project is consistent with the
employment growth analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR, and therefore would not have a significant impact.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to population growth than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Displacement of Housing or People
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impact POP-2 would
not apply to the project as there are no existing residences on the site.
The project site is currently developed with a commercial warehouse, and there are no residences
that would be displaced by the proposed project. There would be no impact on displacement of
housing or people.
Page 62 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
M. Public Services & Recreation
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Public Services LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Recreation LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
Public Services and Recreation
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impacts PUB-1 through PUB-5, and Impacts REC-1 and REC-2, and the less-than-significant
conclusion as the potential to increase demand for services and recreation would not change from
the analysis in the SSF GPU EIR.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts PUB-1 through PUB-5 that the increased need for public
services and possible construction of new facilities for those services that the planned population
and employment growth may require would be a less than significant impact, as all public services
would be required to keep pace with increased population, and all new facilities would be under the
planned “Public” land use, and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations.
As part of the anticipated growth planned for in the SSF GPU (see Section L: Population & Housing),
the project would not increase the need for public services or new facilities for those services
beyond the level that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR. Therefore, the project would not have a
significant impact on public services.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts REC-1 and REC-2 that the increased need for parks and
recreational facilities and possible construction of new parks or facilities that the planned
population and employment growth may require would be a less than significant impact, as
increased parks are planned for in the SSF GPU, and new development would pay a Parks and
Recreation Impact Fee.
As part of the anticipated growth planned for in the SSF GPU, the project would not increase the
need for parks or new recreational facilities beyond the level that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Plaza and landscaped areas would be publicly accessible and the project would contribute in-lieu
fees toward the cost of public parks. The project would not have a significant impact on recreation.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to public services and recreation than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 63
N. Transportation
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level
of
Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. Conflict with
Transportation
Impact Reduction
Goals
SU
☒ ☐ N/A
SU
b. Conflict with
Circulation Plans or Policies
LTS
☒ ☐ LTS
c. Increase Hazards LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ N/A LTS
d. Inadequate
Emergency Access
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
This section utilizes information from the transportation assessment prepared by Fehr & Peers
included in full as Attachment E.
Conflict with Transportation Impact Reduction Goals
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains SU): Impact TRANS-1 would apply to the project, as trip
generation and characteristics under the project would be consistent with estimated projections in
the SSF GPU EIR. The project would be required to implement a project-specific TDM program, which
would serve to reduce operational emissions, as required under SSF Zoning Ordinance Section
20.400.005 (adopted to satisfy SSF GPU MM TRANS-1, which applied to the City and not individual
projects).
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact TRANS-1 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF
GPU, VMT would be above significance thresholds. SSF GPU MM TRANS-1 requires the City to
implement a mandatory TDM ordinance, and East of 101 Trip Cap and parking reductions; however
the SSF GPU EIR determined that the Total VMT per Service Population and Work-Based VMT per
Employee would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. SSFMC Chapter 8.73
requires that new developments pay a Transportation Impact Fee towards transportation system
improvements. Section 20.400.005 of the SSF Zoning Ordinance, commonly known as the TDM
Ordinance, requires project specific TDM documentation. SSF GPU Policies and Actions contain
multiple requirements intended to increase use of alternative modes of transportation.
The project would implement a TDM program pursuant to the City’s TDM Ordinance, and would be
compliant with the City’s maximum parking allowance. The project’s TDM program must achieve a
maximum of 60% of commuting employees by single occupancy vehicles per City requirements. This
would reduce daily trips by 21% (see Attachment E for more details). Traffic engineers Fehr & Peers
prepared a VMT analysis for the project and compared it to the City-level VMTs calculated for the
SSF GPU EIR, as summarized in Table 4 on the next page. The VMT results in Table 4 represent VMT
for the project after trip reductions for the TDM program and reduced parking.
Page 64 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
Table 4: Home-Based Work VMT per Employee Thresholds
Scenario Topic Estimated Home-Based Work VMT
per Employee
Existing
Bay Area Regional Average 14.9
Threshold of Significance
(15% Below Regional Average) 11.6
City 16.6
Project1 16.5
Cumulative (2040)
Bay Area Regional Average 14.7
Threshold of Significance
(15% Below Regional Average) 11.3
City General Plan Buildout 13.4
Project1 12.2
1 Based off the project’s transportation analysis zone in the C/CAG VTA Model
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023, Table 3.2. See Attachment E.
As summarized in Table 4, the VMT for the project is above the significance threshold under both
existing and cumulative conditions, though lower than the City VMT determined in the SSF GPU EIR.
This conclusion factors in implementation of a TDM program meeting City requirements (adopted to
satisfy GPU EIR MM TRANS-1). The project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable
impact in regard to VMT found in the SSF GPU EIR, but would not exacerbate the previously
identified impact.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to VMT than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Conflicts with Circulation Plans or Policies
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact TRANS-2 regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and Impact TRANS-3, regarding transit
facilities, and the less-than-significant conclusions as the project would be required to comply with
City plans and policies.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts TRANS-2 and TRANS-3 that the proposed buildout
would not have a significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to comply
with the City’s TDM ordinance and parking maximum. SSF GPU Policy MOB-2.1 requires all
development projects to incorporate complete street improvements. SSF GPU policies and actions
are consistent with the Active South City Plan and contain measures to reduce the impact on bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. Transit-related SSF GPU actions and policies are not on an individual
project level.
The project is consistent with City transportation plans and policies. The project would enhance the
streetscape of Forbes Boulevard by widening the northern sidewalk, incorporating pedestrian-
oriented landscaping and lighting, and striping bicycle conflict zone markings at driveways,
consistent with SSF GPU Goals to provide safe, active, and multimodal networks, and the Active
South City Plan. A pedestrian and bicycle connection would be provided to the multi-use trail along
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 65
the project’s frontage as well. The project’s TDM program would meet the requirements of the
City’s TDM Ordinance and support the SSF GPU Goals of managing traffic and parking demands and
reducing VMT.
The project would not exceed the City’s parking maximums consistent with SSF GPU Action MOB-
3.3.1. The project has incorporated comments from the City’s site plan review process consistent
with SSF GPU Action MOB-4.1.1. The project would not preclude the City from implementing
proposed transportation or transit projects identified in the SSF GPU or Active South City Plan. With
compliance with the City’s TDM ordinance, SSF GPU goals and actions, and the Active South City
Plan, the project would not have a significant impact on circulation plans and policies.
There are no major transit services within ½ mile of the project site. The South San Francisco Ferry
Terminal is 0.7 miles to the northeast. The applicant is coordinating with Oyster Point Mobility, a
privately funded and operated shuttle service, to provide project occupants with service to the Glen
Park BART and Millbrae Caltrain stations. The nearest shuttle stop is approximately 0.4 miles from
the project site, but new stops are expected about 0.2 miles away. Commute.org is a shuttle service
operated by SamTrans that has a shuttle stop 0.4 miles from the project site, and has service to
South San Francisco BART station, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and the South San
Francisco Ferry Terminal. The project would increase the use of nearby transit services, providing
benefits to the environment, and would not have a significant impact on transit facilities.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to conflicts with circulation plans or policies than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Hazards
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS w/ MM to LTS): The project would not
exacerbate identified Impact TRANS-4 regarding roadway hazards and SSF GPU MM TRANS-4 would
not apply as Impact TRANS-4 and SSF GPU MM TRANS-4 are not on an individual project level.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact TRANS-4 that with the full buildout planned in the SSF
GPU, increased vehicle trips along U.S. 101 would have a potential impact in regard to hazardous
conditions, an increased vehicle trips on freeway ramps could exacerbate vehicle queues along
ramps in excess of their storage capacity and present a potentially hazardous condition under
cumulative conditions. SSF GPU MM TRANS-4 relates to freeway off-ramp queueing and would not
be applicable to the project.
The project would maintain two driveways consistent with the existing site access. The west
driveway would serve as the primary access route for employees and visitors to the project site. The
project’s parking garage and passenger loading area would be accessed via the western driveway.
The eastern driveway would function as the service driveway to the project and would primarily be
used for deliveries. Driveways along Forbes Boulevard would be designed with raised pedestrian
crossings and green painted bicycle conflict markings consistent with guidance from the Active
South City Plan.
Pedestrian and bicycle access to the office/R&D building lobby would be provided from Forbes
Boulevard via a staircase and accessible ramp, as well as via the trail on the western edge of the
project site. The sidewalk along Forbes Boulevard would be widened consistent with design
Page 66 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
guidance provided in the Active South City Plan. Internal pedestrian circulation would link the
passenger loading area and the parking garage. Bicycle parking would be provided in the parking
garage and in front of the office/R&D building entrance on Forbes Boulevard.
The project’s site plan is therefore consistent with applicable design standards and does not present
any potential design hazards. The project would not include any uses that are incompatible with the
surrounding land use or the existing roadway system.
The project would increase vehicle trips along US-101 freeway off-ramps at Oyster Point Boulevard
and East Grand Avenue. The project would generate a daily total of 1,806 net new trips, with 174
net new trips in the AM peak hour and 164 net new trips in the PM peak hour. As the project is part
of the analyzed buildout of the SSF GPU, this additional traffic would contribute to the Impact
TRANS-4 analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR, but would not exacerbate the previously identified impact.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to hazards than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Emergency Access
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact TRANS-5 regarding emergency access and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project
would be required to comply with California Fire Code requirements and design standards.
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impacts TRANS-5 that the proposed buildout would not have a
significant impact, as all new development projects would be required to comply with the California
Fire Code and applicable design standards regarding emergency vehicle access to the project site.
The project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access consistent with applicable design
standards. Both driveways would accommodate all types of emergency vehicles and meet the
requirements of the California Fire Code. Emergency vehicles would access the site via Forbes
Boulevard. With its anticipated uses being office/R&D/technology, the project is not expected to
introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles traveling near the project site. The project
would not introduce roadway features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway
facilities. With compliant emergency vehicle access to the project site, the project would not have a
significant impact on emergency access.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to emergency access than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 67
O. Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a. New or Expanded
Facilities
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
b. Water Supplies LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
c. Wastewater
Capacity
LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
d, e. Solid Waste LTS ☒ ☐ -- LTS
Discussion
New or Expanded Facilities
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact UTIL-1 and the less-than-significant conclusion related to new or expanded facilities as the
project can be served by current utilities as described in the SSF GPU EIR.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact UTIL-1 that existing or planned facilities would be
adequate to service the anticipated buildout of the SSF GPU. No new water treatment facilities
would be needed. Any new development would be subject to the latest adopted edition of the
California Plumbing Code and CALGreen Code, per City requirements, including the provisions for
water-efficient fixtures and toilets, which would reduce the amount of effluent entering the
wastewater system. New development projects would also be required to install on-site storm
drainage infrastructure that would detain stormwater and release runoff at a rate no greater than
the pre-development condition of the project site.
As the project site is currently developed it is already serviced by utilities. The project is within the
buildout that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR, and therefore would not increase demand such that
unplanned new or expanded facilities would be needed. The project would not have a significant
impact on utility facilities.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to new or expanded facilities than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Water Supply
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact UTIL-2 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would not substantially change
projected increases in water demand.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact UTIL-2 that there would be sufficient water to supply the
planned buildout under the SSF GPU through 2045, based on Cal Water’s UWMP and Water
Shortage Contingency Plan, and therefore the SSF GPU would have a less than significant impact on
Page 68 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
water supply. The SSF GPU EIR also stated that each new development project would need to obtain
either a will serve letter from their water supplier or a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) confirming
that there would be enough water to service that development.
As part of the planned SSF GPU buildout, development of the project site has been included in local
and regional water supply planning. A separate WSA was prepared for the project per Senate Bill
610 through coordination between the City and Cal Water (available as part of the project materials
on file with the City). The WSA, prepared by EKI Environment & Water, Inc., in September 2023,
estimates the project’s net annual water demand to be approximately 43 acre-feet per year. The
project applicants received a WSA from Cal Water, which determined that with compliance with
applicable water conservation measures, including low-flow faucets and toilets per CalGreen Code
and low-water use landscaping and a high-efficiency irrigation system in accordance with the
California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, proposed water usage would be within
available supply. The project would not have a significant impact on water supply.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to water supply than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Wastewater
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact UTIL-3 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the project would not substantially change
projected wastewater generation or planned capacity.
The SSF GPU EIR concluded under Impact UTIL-3 that existing wastewater treatment facilities would
be adequate to service the anticipated buildout of the SSF GPU. With the addition of water efficient
fixtures required in new developments resulting in reduced wastewater compared to older
development, the two wastewater treatment plants that currently serve the City can treat the
increased wastewater expected from the full buildout of the SSF GPU.
As the project is within the buildout that was analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR, and is part of the planned
increase in wastewater analyzed under Impact UTIL-3, the existing wastewater treatment plants
would be adequate to treat wastewater from the project. The project would not have a significant
impact on wastewater treatment facilities.
A Sewer Capacity Analysis done for the applicant on July 14, 2023, by BKF Engineers (available as
part of the project application), determined that the existing sanitary sewer system in Forbes
Boulevard would have sufficient capacity for the additional sewage created by the project.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to wastewater than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Solid Waste
Same Conclusion (Conclusion remains LTS): The project would be consistent with SSF GPU EIR
Impact UTIL-4 and the less-than-significant conclusion as the site would be adequately served by
existing facilities and comply with applicable solid waste regulations.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist Page 69
The SSF GPU EIR determined under Impact UTIL-4 that the solid waste generated by development
anticipated under the full buildout of the SSF GPU would be within availability capacity of applicable
landfills and would meet reduction standards and not otherwise conflict with applicable regulations
or goals.
While specific requirements for commercial solid waste service are regularly updated, the project
would meet all current requirements for recycling and waste-diversion during both construction and
operation, including 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, SSF GPU policies and actions, and the SSFMC. The project would not have a
significant impact on solid waste and waste facilities.
Given the above analysis, there are no peculiar circumstances or previously unknown information
relevant to this project, and the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe
impacts related to solid waste than analyzed in the SSF GPU EIR.
Page 70 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
P. Wildfire
Impacts Related To:
SSF GPU EIR Findings with Implementation of MM (If Required)
PROJECT
Relationship to SSF
GPU EIR Findings
Applicable MMs
Project Level of Significance
Equal or Less Severity
Substantial Increase in Severity
a-e. Wildland Fires LTS ☒ ☐ -- NI
Discussion
Wildland Fires
Less Significant Conclusion (Conclusion changes from LTS to NI): SSF GPU EIR Impacts WILD-1
through WILD-5 would not apply to the project as it is not located in or near a State Responsibility
Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.
The closest Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) to the planning area of the GPU is San Bruno
Mountain State Park, which is not in the vicinity of the project site. There would be no impact on
wildfire.
STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT A
to the
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE 573 FORBES BOULEVARD PROJECT
In the first section of the table, standard conditions are listed from the state and local codes and the South San Francisco General Plan as
indicated.
In the second section, applicable mitigation measures (MM) from the South San Francisco General Plan Update (SSF GPU) Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) are listed. Where necessary to make clear how they apply to a specific development project, wording [in brackets] has been
substituted from the original language as appropriate.
Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Standard Condition: Exterior Lighting Plan. Pursuant to
South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
20.300.009, a final exterior lighting plan with
specifications in conformance with the approved plans
is subject to review and approval by the Planning
Division prior to Building Permit issuance.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Applicant
Verify inclusion of
requirements in
planning documents
SSF Planning
Division
Standard Condition: Protection of Trees. Pursuant to
South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 13.30.030,
13.30.060 and 13.30.080, the project proponent shall
obtain a permit to remove any tree(s) protected under
the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance, as determined by
an arborist. Removed trees will be replaced in
accordance with the ordinance at the discretion of the
Director of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Applicant
Verify inclusion of
requirements in
construction
documents
SSF Planning
Division
Standard Condition: Protection of Archeological
Resources. Pursuant to South San Francisco General Prior to and Applicant Verify inclusion of SSF Building
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-2
Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
Plan Goal ES-10, the following policies shall be followed:
Policy ES-10.1: Maintain archaeological procedures for
new development. Maintain formal procedures for
minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeological
resources; Policy ES-10.3: Require that development
proposals be referred to appropriate archaeological
resources. Require that development proposals be
referred to the Northwest Information Center of the
California Archaeological Inventory, Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC), and local Native
American Tribes for review and recommendations
regarding supplemental field investigation; and Policy
ES-10.5: Discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts. 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,
the resources shall be examined by a qualified
archaeologist for appropriate protection and
preservation measures; and work may only resume
when appropriate protections are in place and have
been approved by the Economic and Community
Development Department.
during
construction
activities involving
ground
disturbance
requirements in
construction
documents
Division
Standard Condition: Protection of Human Remains. If
human remains are unearthed during round-disturbing
activities, Section 7050.5(b) and (c) of the California
Health and Safety code will be implemented. Section
7050.5(b) and (c) states:
(b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any
human remains in any location other than a dedicated
Prior to and
during
construction
activities involving
ground
disturbance
Applicant
Verify inclusion of
requirements in
construction
documents
SSF Building
Division
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-3
Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner
of the county in which the human remains are
discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter
10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of
Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the
remains are not subject to the provisions of Section
27492 of the Government Code or any other related
provisions of law concerning investigation of the
circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the
recommendations concerning treatment and
disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or
her authorized representative, in the manner provided
in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The
coroner shall make his or her determination within two
working days from the time the person responsible for
the excavation, or his or her authorized representative,
notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of
the human remains.
(c) If the coroner determines that the remains are not
subject to his or her authority and if the coroner
recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native
American, or has reason to believe that they are those
of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the Native American
Heritage Commission. [In which case, section 5097.98 of
the California Public Resources Code would apply.]
Standard Condition: Stormwater Control Plan.
Pursuant to South San Francisco General Plan Policy ES-Prior to issuance
of building Applicant Verify inclusion of
requirements in
SSF Planning
Division
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-4
Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
7.3, projects shall be required to follow stormwater
management practices for new and redevelopment
projects. Continue to require 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.
permits planning documents
Standard Condition: Compliance with Design-Level
Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans.
Consistent with South San Francisco General Plan
Action CR-4.4.1, projects shall require site-specific soils
and geologic reports for projects located in high hazard
areas. On a parcel-by-parcel basis, require that permit
applications for projects located within areas
susceptible to geologic hazards, as shown in the SSF
General Plan Update EIR Figure 43, prepare site-specific
soils and geologic reports for review and approval by
the City Engineer, and incorporation of the
recommended actions during construction.
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
Applicant
Verification that
design requirements
are met and
reviewed by
qualified
professional
SSF Building
Division
Standard Condition: Protection of Paleontological
Resources. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.5, if
unknown paleontological resources are discovered
during ground disturbing activities a person shall not
knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove,
destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric
ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate
paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,
inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any
other archaeological, paleontological or historical
feature, situated on public lands, except with the
Prior to and
during
construction
activities involving
ground
disturbance
Applicant
Verify inclusion of
requirements in
construction
documents
SSF Building
Division
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-5
Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
express permission of the public agency having
jurisdiction over the lands.
Standard Condition: Construction Noise. Section
8.32.050 of South San Francisco Municipal Code states
that construction, alteration, repair, or landscape
maintenance actives which are authorized by a valid
City permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between
the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays
and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. or when authorized by a permit and not exceeding
90 dB at a distance of 25 feet or exceeds 90 dB at any
point outside a proposed project’s property plane.
Prior to issuance
of demolition,
building or
grading permits
Applicant
Verify inclusion of
requirements in
construction
documents
SSF Building
Division
Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Pursuant
to Chapter 20.400 of the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code and San Mateo County Congestion
Management Program Land Use Implementation Policy
(C/CAG TDM Policy), all projects subject to these
requirements, as indicated in Section 20.400.002
(“Applicability”), shall incorporate measures that have a
demonstrable effect on reducing the number of vehicle
trips generated. Measures shall be selected from the list
described in Section 20.400.004 (“Trip Reduction
Measures”) and shall achieve the total number of points
required. Certain measures are required, but required
measures vary by land use. Required points are
intended to align with the approximate level of auto
travel reductions to achieve consistency with City,
regional, and State environmental goals based on
applicable industry research. Office and research and
Prior to issuance
of building
permits
-and-
Annually
Applicant
Verify inclusion of
requirements in
project
documents
SSF Planning
Division
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-6
Standard Condition Timing/ Schedule Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
development uses between 50,000 and 400,000 square
feet of gross floor area require (1) a total of 50 points
(2) Annual monitoring to achieve a maximum of 60
percent of employees commuting via driving alone. A
complete table of the points associated with each
measure, detailed descriptions of each measure, and
applicability of measures are available from the
Planning Department.
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-7
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
SSF GP MM AIR-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices.
[The project applicant / owner / sponsor] 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
Prior to
issuance of
all grading
and
construction
permits
-and-
During
grading and
construction
Applicant
Verify
construction
contractors
provide
acknowledg
ment of
requirements
-and-
Verify
requirements
are met
during
grading and
construction
SSF
Building
Division
573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist, MMRP Page A-8
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
SSF GPU 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 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.
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit, if
during
nesting
period
-and-
Prior to
issuance of
any
subsequent
grading or
construction
permit if
during
nesting
period
Applicant
Verify
completion
of nesting
survey and, if
birds present,
provision of
buffer
-and-
Confirm no
gap in activity
over 14 days
or verify
updated
nesting
survey
SSF Planning
Division