HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B - Initial StudyAppendix B: Initial Study
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
INFINITE 131 PROJECT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
LEAD AGENCY: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California, 94080 Contact: Billy Gross (650) 877-8535 billy.gross@ssf.net
June 2024
ICF. 2024. Infinite 131 Project Initial Study Checklist. June. (ICF 104668.0.001.01.) San Francisco. Prepared for City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco, CA.
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist i June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 CEQA Review of the Project ................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Scope and Content of the Checklist ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.3.1 Project-Level Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3.2 Program-Level Analysis ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.3 Cumulative Analysis ......................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Incorporation by Reference ................................................................................................... 1-7
1.5 Checklist Organization .......................................................................................................... 1-7
Chapter 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Location and Physical Setting .................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ........................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.5 Project Components ............................................................................................................. 2-3
2.5.1 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ............................................................................. 2-5
2.5.2 Transportation Demand Management ............................................................................ 2-6
2.5.3 Lighting ............................................................................................................................ 2-7
2.5.4 Building Design and Sustainability Features .................................................................... 2-7
2.5.5 Landscaping ..................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5.6 Employees ....................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5.7 Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 2-9
2.6 Project Construction ............................................................................................................. 2-10
2.7 General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Code Amendments ............................................... 2-12
2.8 Required Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................... 2-13
Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.1.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ........................................................................................ 3-8
City of South San Francisco
Contents
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist ii June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.2.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2.3 Cumulative .................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2.4 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ...................................................................................... 3-10
3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 3-11
3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-12
3.4.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.4.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-14
3.4.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ...................................................................................... 3-20
3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 3-21
3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................. 3-23
3.6.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-23
3.6.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-24
3.6.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ...................................................................................... 3-26
3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 3-28
3.7.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-28
3.7.2 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 3-29
3.7.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ...................................................................................... 3-33
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 3-34
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 3-35
3.9.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-35
3.9.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 3-37
3.9.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ...................................................................................... 3-43
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 3-44
3.10.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-44
3.10.2 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-46
3.10.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................. 3-50
3.11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 3-51
3.11.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-51
3.11.2 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3-52
3.11.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-56
3.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................... 3-57
3.12.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-57
3.12.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3-57
3.12.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-58
City of South San Francisco
Contents
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist iii June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 3-59
3.14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 3-60
3.14.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-60
3.14.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3-61
3.14.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-63
3.15 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 3-64
3.15.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-64
3.15.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3-65
3.15.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-67
3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 3-68
3.16.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-68
3.16.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3-69
3.16.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-69
3.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 3-70
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-71
3.18.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-71
3.18.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3-72
3.18.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-73
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 3-74
3.19.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-75
3.19.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3-76
3.19.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-80
3.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................ 3-82
3.20.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................ 3-82
3.20.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 3-83
3.20.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels ................................................................................... 3-83
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................... 3-84
Chapter 4 Report Preparation ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Lead Agency ........................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Consulting Team .................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 ICF .................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 Fehr & Peers .................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Project Sponsor Team ............................................................................................................ 4-2
4.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted ................................................................................... 4-2
City of South San Francisco
Contents
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist iv June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
APPENDICES
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments Received on the NOP
Appendix B Initial Study
Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report
Appendix D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Files
Appendix E Built-Environment Resources Study
Appendix F Tribal Outreach Materials
Appendix G Noise Technical Report
Appendix H Transportation Impact Assessment
Appendix I TDM Plan
Appendix J Biological Species Database Searches
Appendix K Arborist Report
Appendix L Bird-Safe Design Strategy
Appendix M Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix N Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
Appendix O Water Supply Assessment
City of South San Francisco
Contents
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist v June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Tables
2-1 Summary of Proposed Land Uses .............................................................................................. 2-4
2-2 Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project .................................................... 2-14
Figures
follows page
1-1 Cumulative Project Locations .................................................................................................... 1-4
2-1 Project Location Map ................................................................................................................ 2-2
2-2 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................ 2-2
2-3 Existing Zoning Designations ..................................................................................................... 2-4
2-4 Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 2-4
2-5 Rendering from U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway) .......................................................................... 2-8
2-6 Proposed General Plan Amendments ..................................................................................... 2-14
2-7 Proposed Zoning Code Amendments ...................................................................................... 2-14
3.1-1 U.S. 101 Northbound Facing South ........................................................................................ 3.1-4
3.1-2 San Mateo Avenue Facing East .............................................................................................. 3.1-4
3.1-3 Shaw Road Facing North ........................................................................................................ 3.1-4
3.10-1 FEMA Flood Zones .............................................................................................................. 3.10-46
City of South San Francisco
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist vi June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BMP best management practices
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHP California Highway Patrol
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CREC controlled recognized environmental conditions
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
DMA drainage management area
DOT Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESL Environmentally Sensitive Land
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
GHG greenhouse gas
HASP Health and Safety Plan
HCD Housing and Community Development
HCP habitat conservation plan
HREC historical recognized environmental condition
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
HVL highly volatile liquid
City of South San Francisco
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist vii June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LID low-impact development
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MIH Mixed Industrial High
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP natural community conservation plan
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE Peninsula Clean Energy
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
POPA privately owned publicly accessible
PPE personal protective equipment
PV photovoltaic
R&D research and development
RCP reinforced concrete pipes
REC recognized environmental conditions
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
ROG reactive organic gases
ROW right-of-way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SFO San Francisco International Airport
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMCEH San Mateo County Environmental Health
SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program
SMP Site Management Plan
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSF South San Francisco
SSFFD South San Francisco Fire Department
SSFPD South San Francisco Police Department
SSFUSD South San Francisco Unified School District
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Quality Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TDM Transportation Demand Management
City of South San Francisco
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist viii June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UBR Urban Bird Refuge
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VOC volatile organic compounds
WQCP water quality control plant
WSA water supply assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-1 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background US 131 Terminal Court Owner, LLC (project sponsor), is proposing construction and operation of the Infinite 131 Project (proposed project), which would include demolition of approximately 126,750 square feet (sf) of industrial and operational uses that are currently occupied by the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, along with approximately 116,572 sf of open-air structures (e.g., loading docks, trash compactor areas), on a 17.67-acre site (i.e., the project site). In its place, the proposed project would construct approximately 1.7 million sf of research-and-development (R&D) uses and amenities within seven buildings, ranging from one to six stories, along with two parking garages and additional surface parking. Landscaping would also be provided. The proposed amenities, which would include a day-care center, fitness center, restaurant, conference rooms, and lobbies, would be located on the ground-floor level of the R&D buildings and accessible from a network of interconnected pathways as well as central courtyards. The proposed project would require general plan, specific plan, and zoning code amendments to change the existing land use and zoning designations from Mixed Industrial High (MIH) to Business Technology Park High (BTP-H) and allow development of the R&D campus. In addition, five parcels north of the project site at 120 Terminal Court, 196 Produce Avenue, 160 Produce Avenue, and 140 Produce Avenue (off-site redesignation parcels), which are currently designated and zoned as MIH, would also seek general plan, specific plan, and zoning code amendments to be redesignated as BTP-H. However, the proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses as part of redesignation of these parcels.
1.2 CEQA Review of the Project This initial study has been prepared by the project’s lead agency, the City of South San Francisco (City), in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines). The lead agency is the public agency with principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Environmental checklists, as included in this initial study, are prepared for projects that are subject to environmental review under CEQA. The information, analysis, and conclusions contained in the environmental checklist are the basis for deciding whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration should be prepared. As indicated later, the City has determined that an EIR is required.
1.3 Scope and Content of the Checklist As permitted by the CEQA Guidelines, this initial study checklist has referenced numerous technical studies, analyses, previously certified environmental documentation, and planning documents, which have been incorporated by reference. Information from the documents has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the draft EIR has also been described, as appropriate.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-2 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in this initial study checklist with the appropriate degree of specificity, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. This checklist evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on the following areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and forestry resources
• Air quality
• Biological resources
• Cultural resources
• Energy
• Geology, soils, and paleontological resources
• Greenhouse gas emissions
• Hazards and hazardous materials
• Hydrology and water quality
• Land use and planning
• Mineral resources
• Noise
• Population/housing
• Public services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal cultural resources
• Utilities and service systems
• Wildfire
1.3.1 Project-Level Analysis Potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, as well as construction of the off-site transportation and circulation improvements needed to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed project, are analyzed at a project level in this initial study. These components of the proposed project have been developed with the level of certainty necessary to allow for a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts associated with their implementation. The level of detail in this initial study for an analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project matches the level of detail available in the draft plans for the proposed project, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. Additional studies pertaining to air quality, noise, transportation, and other areas have been prepared for this initial study to provide detailed information about the project’s potential impacts on the environment.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-3 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
1.3.2 Program-Level Analysis Potential impacts associated with redesignating the off-site redesignation parcels are assessed programmatically because no developments have been proposed in the area. Rather, the parcels would be redesignated as BTP-H, consistent with the zoning designation for the project site, to facilitate future development consistent with the uses proposed for the project site. Future projects proposed at the off-site redesignation parcels would be required to prepare additional environmental documentation in order to comply with CEQA. They would also be subject to the programmatic mitigation measures identified in this initial study and EIR.
1.3.3 Cumulative Analysis Cumulative impacts are two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or capable of compounding or increasing environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or changes from a number of separate projects. Cumulative impacts are the impacts of a project in combination with other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 [a][b]). The following factors are considered in determining the level cumulative analysis:
• Similar Environmental Impacts – A relevant project contributes to effects on resources that would also be affected by a proposed project. A relevant future project is defined as one that is “reasonably foreseeable,” such as a project with an application on file at the approving agency or a project with approved funding.
• Geographic Scope and Location – A relevant project is within the geographic area where effects could combine. The geographic scope varies on a resource-by-resource basis. For example, the geographic scope for evaluating cumulative effects on air quality consists of the affected air basin, while the geographic scope for evaluating cumulative effects on traffic typically consists of the roadways within the region that could carry additional vehicles as a result of the net new vehicle miles traveled associated with a proposed project.
• Timing and Duration of Implementation – The timing of effects associated with activities for a relevant project (e.g., short-term construction or demolition, long-term operations) would very likely coincide with the timing of the related effects of a proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) sets forth two primary approaches for the analysis of cumulative impacts. The analysis can be based on (1) a list of past, present, or probable future projects with related impacts that could combine with those of a proposed project or (2) a summary of projections contained in a general plan or related planning document. The cumulative impact analysis in this initial study checklist generally employs either the list-based approach or a projections approach, depending on which approach appropriately captures the cumulative context for the individual resource topic being analyzed. Cumulative analyses for topics that tend to be highly localized (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils) use a list-based approach, which includes anticipated nearby future projects in the project vicinity (i.e., within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site). Other impacts can affect existing conditions on a citywide or regional scale (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, population growth). These topics employ a projections approach for evaluating cumulative impacts.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-4 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Cumulative Projects within 0.5-Mile Radius The projects considered for the list-based approach are listed below and mapped in Figure 1-1. Generally, these are projects for which applications have been filed with the City, as of the date of publication of the notice of preparation for the proposed project (November 1, 2023), and/or projects that the City has otherwise determined are reasonably foreseeable. The following projects are located within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site: 1. 101 Terminal Court: Construction of approximately 696,000 sf of R&D/amenity uses within two six-story buildings, along with a seven-story parking garage and landscaping on an 8.69-acre site (entitled September 2023; construction date to be determined). 2. 124 Airport Boulevard and 100 Produce Avenue: Construction of a seven-story residential building with 294 apartments on a 2.56-acre site at 124 Airport Boulevard and a seven-story residential building with 186 apartments on a 1.56-acre site at 100 Produce Avenue (entitled
January 2022; construction date to be determined). 3. 40 Airport Boulevard: Construction of an eight-story residential building with 292 units and two levels of parking on a 1.63-acre site (entitled August 2022; construction date to be
determined). 4. 7 South Linden Avenue: Construction of a five-story residential building with 558 apartment units on a 4.22-acre site (entitled March 2023; construction date to be determined). 5. Railroad Avenue Townhomes: Construction of a residential project consisting of 73 townhomes on a 2.04-acre site (currently under review). 6. 100 East Grand Avenue: Construction of a new R&D campus, consisting of a 10-story building, an eight-story building, and an eight-story parking garage on a 5.04-acre site (entitled October
2022; construction date to be determined). 7. 120 East Grand Avenue: Construction of a new R&D campus, consisting of an 11-story building, a five-story building, an amenity building, and a five-story parking garage on a 4.5-acre site (entitled May 2023; construction date to be determined). 8. 175 Sylvester Road: Construction of a new R&D campus, consisting of one 10-story building, one 8-story building, and one 9-level parking garage on a 4.74-acre site (currently under review). 9. Southline Master Plan Project (located at 30 Tanforan Avenue): Construction of six office/R&D buildings (up to seven stories high) totaling approximately 2.8 million sf, along with development of a parking garage, below-grade parking, site amenities, and open space and landscaping on a 26-acre site (Phase I entitled July 2022 and currently under construction;
completion date to be determined).
Cumulative Projects within City of South San Francisco For purposes of the cumulative analysis regarding historic resources, fire protection, police protection, library services, and childcare services, the list of reasonably foreseeable projects has been expanded beyond a 0.5-mile radius to include all reasonably foreseeable development within the city limits because the city is the cumulative context for those environmental topics. According to the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan Update EIR (General Plan EIR) and the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum (Specific Plan Addendum), reasonably foreseeable development in the city by 2040 will include residential, mixed, and non-residential uses, along with other types of uses. As shown in
Figure 1-1
Cumulative Project Locations
\\
P
D
C
C
I
T
R
D
S
G
I
S
0
1
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
C
i
t
y
_
o
f
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
S
a
n
_
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
\
1
0
4
6
6
8
_
0_
1
_
1
S
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
_
1
3
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
o
c
\
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
\
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
\
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
.
a
p
r
x
;
U
s
e
r
:
5
8
3
0
3
;
D
a
t
e
:
3
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
4
1
2
34
5
6 7
8
9
10
11
1412
13
Project Site
Off-Site Redesignation Parcels
Cumulative Project
City Boundary
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:15,000
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Basemap: ESRI 2024
[this page left blank intentionally]
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-5 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Table 4.1-1, if total buildout under the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan (General Plan) and Lindenville Specific Plan were to occur, it would result in a projected 59,296,988 sf of non-residential/mixed/ other uses, 38,960 residential units, 137,809 employees, and 107,205 residents.
Table 4.1-1. Total Buildout Projected under the General Plan and Lindenville Specific Plan General Plan (2040 buildout)a
Lindenville Specific Plan (plus addendum)b
Total Buildout (general plan plus Lindenville) Non-Residential/Mixed/Other Uses (sf) 58,988,056 308,932 59,296,988 sf Residential (dwelling units) 38,959 units 1 unit 38,960 units Employment (employees) 137,557 252 137,809 employees Population (residents) 107,203 2 107,205 residents Sources: a. First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064. b. David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 2023. Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum. Available: Lindenville Specific Plan (ssf.net). Accessed: September 14, 2023. sf = square feet
Other Cumulative Projects Although it is outside a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, the Bayhill Specific Plan and Tanforan projects are reasonably foreseeable large development projects in San Bruno. Given the scale of the Bayhill Specific Plan and Tanforan projects, as well as the potential for both projects to share certain overlapping local and regional transportation infrastructure, the Bayhill Specific Plan and Tanforan projects have been added to the cumulative traffic model used in the cumulative transportation analysis in Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation. As such, the Bayhill Specific Plan and Tanforan projects are also included in the cumulative analysis of mobile-source air emissions in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and the cumulative analysis of traffic-generated noise in Section 4.5, Noise
and Vibration, both of which include cumulative traffic volumes. 10. Bayhill Specific Plan: The Bayhill Specific Plan would allow for the development of up to 2.46 million net new sf of office uses and up to 573 multi-family residential units on a 92.2-acre site. The first phase of development, referred to as the Phase I development, would construct two new buildings with 440,000 sf of office space, along with a subgrade parking structure and transportation and circulation improvements (Phase I entitled July 2022 and currently under
construction; anticipated construction completion date: 2028). 11. Tanforan Project: The Tanforan Project would redevelop a 44-acre site, which is currently occupied by The Shops at Tanforan Shopping Center. In its place, the Tanforan Project would construct a transit-oriented, mixed-use village with approximately 250,000 sf of new and relocated retail space; approximately 1,000 multi-family residential units; approximately 711,000 sf of life sciences laboratory and office uses; an approximately 14,500 sf amenity building; and a parking garage. In addition, the existing Century at Tanforan movie theater would be remodeled and incorporated into the project; the existing Target store would be relocated to a new retail building in the western portion of the project site (currently under review).
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-6 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
In addition to adjusting for the Bayhill Specific Plan and Tanforan projects, the forecasts for cumulative transportation conditions were adjusted to reflect other reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect cumulative traffic, including operation of 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak periods along the Caltrain railroad corridor, a reasonably foreseeable condition that could result with the California High-Speed Rail Project (described below) and the Caltrain business plan’s adopted service vision (i.e., operating eight trains per hour in each direction during peak periods). For purposes of the cumulative noise and vibration analysis in Section 4.5, Noise and Vibration, three additional projects were considered in the cumulative analysis, given their proximity to the project site and their potential to combine with the proposed project and result in cumulative noise and vibration impacts. These projects are the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, which would include cosntruction along the Caltrain right-of-way (ROW) and an increase in the number of trains along the ROW; the California High-Speed Rail Project, which would include the installation of four quadrant safety gates at the Linden Avenue crossing, approximately 0.20 mile west of the project site, and an increase in the number of trains along the ROW; and the US Highway 101/Produce Avenue Interchange Project, which would include a new U.S. 101 overcrossing, extending from the Utah Avenue/South Airport Boulevard intersection to San Mateo Avenue. 12. Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: The project consists of converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to electric-multiple-unit trains for service between the 4th and King Street station in the city of San Francisco and the Tamien station in the city of San José, a total distance of 51 miles. The project would require the installation of 130 to 150 single-track miles of overhead contact system for the distribution of electrical power to the new electric rolling stock (currently under construction; anticipated completion date: fall 2024). 13. California High-Speed Rail Project: Phase I of the high-speed rail system would extend from the city of San Francisco to the city of Los Angeles; this is currently scheduled for completion by 2033. Specifically, the section from San Francisco to San José, which would be in proximity to the project site, would include approximately 43 to 49 miles of mixed existing train infrastructure and new high-speed rail infrastructure, passing through San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. This segment would include installation of four quadrant safety gates at the Linden Avenue crossing, approximately 0.20 mile west of the project site, and an increase in the number of trains along the ROW (Final EIR/Environmental Impact Statement for the
San Francisco to San José segment was certified and approved by the California High-Speed Rail
Authority’s Board of Directors in August 2022; anticipated construction date: 2033). 14. US Highway 101/Produce Avenue Interchange Project: The project would include a new U.S. 101 overcrossing, extending from the Utah Avenue/South Airport Boulevard intersection to San Mateo Avenue (referred to as the Utah Avenue extension). The intersections at South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue and San Mateo Avenue/Utah Avenue would be reconstructed to include turning lanes and connect to the new overcrossing. The Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue intersection would be reconfigured. The project would include bike lanes and sidewalks on the overcrossing and signalized crosswalks and bike lanes at the affected intersections (Final EIR/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact was
released by the California Department of Transportation in February 2023 and approved by the
California Transportation Commission in March 2023; construction date to be determined).
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-7 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
1.4 Incorporation by Reference CEQA allows information from other public documents by reference. This initial study incorporates by reference information or analysis from the following adopted plans and supporting environmental documents, which were developed by the City as part of its planning process.
• Shape SSF 2040 General Plan (General Plan)—adopted October 2022; amended September 2023
• Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments,
and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California (General Plan EIR)—June 2022; State Clearinghouse No. 20210120064
• Final Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and
Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California (General Plan EIR)—September 2022; State Clearinghouse No. 20210120064
• Lindenville Specific Plan (Specific Plan)—adopted September 2023
• Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum (Specific Plan Addendum)—September 2023 As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, where an EIR or initial study uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the reference shall be briefly summarized or described. Where information from the above-listed documents is incorporated into this initial study, the incorporated information is briefly summarized or described in the corresponding section in Chapter 3, Environmental Impacts Checklist. Copies of these documents are available to the public at these locations: City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Planning Division City Clerk 315 Maple Avenue 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco, CA 94080 City of South San Francisco Library (Reference Desk) 901 Civic Campus Way South San Francisco, CA 94080 Electronic copies are available at:
• Shape SSF 2040 General Plan and General Plan EIR: https://shapessf.com/
• Lindenville Specific Plan: https://shapessf.com/plan-lindenville/
• Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum: https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id= 550747&dbid=0&repo=SSFDocs
1.5 Checklist Organization This initial study checklist is organized in chapters and appendices, as described below.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 1
Introduction
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 1-8 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
• Chapter 1, Introduction, includes a brief overview of the project, the environmental review process, and the scope, content, and organization of the checklist.
• Chapter 2, Project Description, includes a comprehensive description of the project.
• Chapter 3, Environmental Impacts Checklist, includes an evaluation of the resource topics outlined in Section 1.3, Scope and Content of the Checklist. For each impact identified, a level of significance is determined using the following classifications:
o Potentially significant impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect would be significant or an established threshold would be exceeded. If one or more “potentially significant impact” determinations are made, then the relevant topics will be analyzed further in the EIR.
o Less than significant with mitigation is appropriate when impacts would be potentially significant but implementation of mitigation measures from the specific plan addendum or general plan EIR, which would be a required condition of approval, would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.
o Less than significant applies when a proposed project would affect, or be affected by, the environment, but based on sources cited in the report, the impact would not have an adverse effect and would not exceed established thresholds.
o No impact denotes situations in which there would be no adverse effect on the environment. Referenced sources show that the impact would not apply to the proposed project.
• Chapter 4, Report Preparation, includes a list of staff members who contributed to preparation of the checklist.
• Appendices1 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments Received on the NOP B Initial Study C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Files E Built-Environment Resources Study F Tribal Outreach Materials G Noise Technical Report H Transportation Impact Assessment I TDM Plan J Biological Species Database Searches K Arborist Report L Bird-Safe Design Strategy M Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation N Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments O Water Supply Assessment 1 The list of appendices is one single list that is inclusive of both the appendices used for the Draft EIR and the Initial Study. This document, the Infinite 131 Project Initial Study Checklist, is included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR and is therefore included in the above list.
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-1 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Chapter 2 Project Description
2.1 Project Overview US 131 Terminal Court Owner, LLC (project sponsor), is proposing construction and operation of the Infinite 131 Project (proposed project), which would include demolition of approximately 126,750 square feet (sf) of industrial and operational uses that are currently occupied by the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, along with approximately 116,572 sf of open-air structures (e.g., loading docks, trash compactor areas), on a 17.67-acre site (i.e., the project site). In its place, the proposed project would construct approximately 1.7 million sf of research-and-development (R&D) uses and amenities within seven buildings, ranging from one to six stories, along with two parking garages and additional surface parking. Landscaping would also be provided. The proposed project would require general plan, specific plan, and zoning code amendments to change the existing land use and zoning designations from Mixed Industrial High (MIH) to Business Technology Park High (BTP-H) and allow development of the R&D campus. In addition, five parcels north of the project site at 120 Terminal Court, 196 Produce Avenue, 160 Produce Avenue, and 140 Produce Avenue (off-site redesignation parcels), which are currently designated and zoned as MIH, would also seek general plan, specific plan and zoning code amendments to be redesignated as BTP-H. However, the proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses as part of redesignation of these parcels.
2.2 Project Location and Physical Setting The approximately 17.67-acre project site comprises one parcel at 131 Terminal Court in the city of South San Francisco (Figure 2-1). The project site is identified as assessor’s parcel number (APN) 015-113-210. Surrounding land uses include industrial and commercial uses. Specifically, Terminal Court and a large Park N’ Fly surface parking lot is north of the project site, a large surface parking lot and U.S. 101 (known as Bayshore Freeway) are adjacent to the eastern portion of the project site, a navigable slough1 that feeds into San Bruno Canal is south of the project site, and several mixed industrial and commercial buildings and San Mateo Avenue are west of the project site. The project site is approximately 1 mile west of San Francisco Bay and 0.30 mile west of a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail that runs along San Bruno Canal. The southern part of the project site also includes a portion of the shoreline band jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) adjacent to the navigable slough. In addition, the project site is approximately 1 mile northwest of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Access to the project site is provided via Terminal Court from Produce Avenue. The topography of the project site is relatively flat, approximately 6 feet above mean sea level.2 There is little to no on-site landscaping, and there are no existing trees on the project site.3 1 The navigable slough is a remnant tidal channel that cuts through a commercial district in the city of South San Francisco. The slough is connected to San Francisco Bay. (ESA. 2019. Navigable Slough Flood Management Study, Prepared for County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and City of San Bruno. Available: https://oneshoreline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Navigable-Slough-Flood-Management-Study.pdf. Accessed: April 12, 2023). 2 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco. April 2022. 3 HMH Engineers. 2022. Terminal 131 Certified Tree Inventory. July 27, 2022.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-2 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The project site is currently occupied by the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, a produce market facility, and associated surface parking. The project site consists of two warehouse buildings and a smaller administrative building, totaling approximately 126,750 sf. In addition, the site is also developed with approximately 116,572 sf of open-air structures, including loading docks and trash compactors, associated with operations of the Golden Gate Produce Terminal. The existing warehouse and administrative buildings were constructed by 1962, the loading dock adjacent to the east warehouse building was constructed between approximately 1981 and 1987, and a large free-standing loading dock was constructed between approximately 2002 and 2005. There are approximately 475 existing employees on the project site. The project site outside the existing building footprints is covered with asphalt and concrete paving, with minimal surrounding landscaping and no trees. The off-site redesignation parcels are north of the project site, across Terminal Court, at 120 Terminal Court, 196 Produce Avenue, 160 Produce Avenue, and 140 Produce Avenue (APNs 015-113-350, 015-113-290, 015-113-340, 015-113-330, 015-113-320). The off-site redesignation parcels currently comprise a large Park N’ Fly surface parking lot and a Shell gas station. Collectively, the off-site redesignation parcels cover approximately 7.28 acres.
2.3 Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations The city of South San Francisco is organized as several geographic areas, referred to as planning sub-
areas, including the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, as identified in the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan (General Plan) adopted in October 2022. The project site and the off-site redesignation parcels are located in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, an approximately 400-acre area in the central southern portion of the city between U.S. 101 and South Spruce Avenue, adjacent to the Downtown Sub-Area. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area comprises largely industrial, business, food processing, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. The General Plan’s Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. According to the General Plan, the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area aims to preserve business and industrial uses while strengthening its economic base, which includes a large number of small businesses and a high share of area jobs, by retaining a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses.4 The Lindenville Specific Plan (Specific Plan), adopted in September 2023, establishes the planning framework for the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. Under the Specific Plan, both the project site and off-site redesignation parcels are designated as MIH, which allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. Figure 2-2 illustrates the existing land use designations for the project site, the off-site redesignation parcels, and the surrounding area under the Lindenville Specific Plan. The project site and off-site redesignation parcels are designated in the City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) Zoning Code as MIH. As established in the City’s Zoning Code, the maximum building height allowed under the existing MIH zoning designation is 65 feet. The base maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) under the MIH zoning designation is 0.4, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 2.0, for all permitted uses. However, R&D facilities under this zoning designation may have a maximum allowed FAR of 0.5, provided they follow the 4 City of South San Francisco. 2022. 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2022/11/SSFGPU_PDFPlan_FinalPlan_Resolution_11082022.pdf. Accessed: March 15, 2023.
Figure 2-1
Project Location Map
\\
P
D
C
C
I
T
R
D
S
G
I
S
0
1
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
C
i
t
y
_
o
f
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
S
a
n
_
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
\
1
0
4
6
6
8
_
0
_
1
_
1
S
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
_
1
3
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
o
c
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
_
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
.
a
p
r
x
;
U
s
e
r
:
5
8
3
0
3
;
D
a
t
e
:
8
/
1
/
2
0
2
3
0 500250
Feet
Project Site
Off-Site Redesignation Parcels
City Limits
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000 Source: ESRI
Figure 2-2
Existing General Plan Land use Designations
\\
P
D
C
C
I
T
R
D
S
G
I
S
0
1
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
C
i
t
y
_
o
f
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
S
a
n
_
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
\
1
0
4
6
6
8
_
0
_
1
_
1
S
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
_
1
3
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
o
c
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
_
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
.
a
p
r
x
;
U
s
e
r
:
5
8
3
0
3
;
D
a
t
e
:
9
/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
0 500250
Feet
Project Site
Off-Site Redesignation Parcels
Land Use
Public
East of 101 Mixed Use
Business and Professional Office
Business Technology Park High
T3 Makers Lindenville
T5 Lindenville
Mixed Industrial
Mixed Industrial High
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
Transportation
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000 Sources: City of South San Francisco 2022, ESRI
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-3 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
requirements of the City’s Community Benefits Program, as outlined in Chapter 20.395 of the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, as required under the MIH designation, truck docks, loading areas, and service areas must be located at the rear or interior side of buildings and must be screened so that they are not visible from surrounding public streets, including highways. However, as described in more detail below in Section 2.7, General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning
Code Amendments, the proposed project would require General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning amendments. Figure 2-3 illustrates the existing zoning designations for the project site, the off-site redesignation parcels, and the surrounding area.
2.4 Project Objectives The project sponsor identified the following objectives for the proposed project:
• Redevelop the property with R&D, biotechnology, and office uses in a secure and integrated campus setting.
• Create an iconic, inspiring, and dynamic gateway presence along U.S. 101 with high visibility.
• Incorporate a building and landscape design that sets a unique identity within the city.
• Utilize a shifting and articulated building massing that creates visual, desirable, and usable amenities, including outdoor terraces for tenants.
• Provide an activated landscape area that, in addition to being pedestrian friendly, encourages walking and biking, interaction, and collaboration and provides a wide range of opportunities for wind-protected outdoor activities.
• Integrate sustainable strategies to advocate an energy-efficient and performative design, including water-saving strategies.
• Provide a highly efficient and flexible workplace with daylight for interior spaces and outward views of the surrounding areas.
• Provide a positive fiscal impact on the local economy through the creation of jobs, enhancement of property values, support for local transportation infrastructure, and the generation of property tax and development fees.
• Provide well-designed, flexible buildings and floor plates that can accommodate a variety of tenants to ensure the proposed project will be responsive to market conditions and demands.
2.5 Project Components The project proposes demolition of all existing uses on the project site (i.e., warehouse buildings, administrative building, open-air structures) and construction of R&D uses and an on-site amenity space. Overall, the proposed project would construct approximately 1.7 million sf of new uses across seven buildings. As detailed in Table 2-1, this breaks down to approximately 1,632,000 sf of R&D uses and approximately 72,050 sf of amenity uses. The buildings would be tied together through landscaping and open space to create a sustainable campus environment with improved pedestrian and bicyclist circulation and access, as depicted in Figure 2-4. Building heights would range from one to six stories, with the maximum building height being 113 feet, 6 inches. In addition, the proposed project would include two parking garages, associated with
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-4 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Table 2-1. Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Building R&D (sf) Conference (sf)
Fitness
Center (sf) Restaurant (sf)
Day Care
(sf) Total (sf) Maximum Heighta
I131S 824,000 4,000 0 2,000 0 830,000 6 stories (113 feet, 6 inches)
I131S
(amenity
building)
0 13,000 20,000 17,000 0 50,000 2 stories (32 feet, 0 inches)
I131N 808,000 4,000 0 8,000 0 820,000 6 stories (113 feet, 6 inches)
Day-care Center 0 0 0 0 4,050 4,050 1 story (16 feet, 0 inches)
Total 1,632,000 21,000 20,000 27,000 4,050 1,704,050 113 feet, 6 inches Notes: a. The building height is measured to the top of rooftop appurtenances. the I131N building and I131S building. The I131N parking garage would be approximately 551,631 sf in area and approximately 100 feet tall. It would include three below-grade levels of parking as well as nine levels of above-grade parking. The I131S parking garage would be approximately 453,034 sf in area and include two levels of below-grade parking. The I131S A, I131S B, and I131S C buildings, collectively referred to as the I131S building, would have a total area of approximately 830,000 sf and be six stories tall, or approximately 114 feet. The I131S building would include entrance lobbies on the ground floor, with R&D uses across all building levels. In addition, approximately 4,000 sf of conference space and 2,000 sf of restaurant/cafe space would also be located on the ground floor of the building. The I131S building would incorporate outdoor terraces on multiple levels of the proposed buildings for use by building tenants. In addition , the proposed project would incorporate an approximately 50,000 sf amenity building, the I131S amenity building, which would be located in the central courtyard adjacent to the I131S building. The amenity building would be two stories (approximately 32 feet), with approximately 17,000 sf of restaurant space, approximately 20,000 sf for the fitness center, and approximately 13,000 sf of conference space. The proposed fitness center would be available for use by the public and the proposed project’s tenants. The I131N building (i.e., buildings I131N A and I131N B) would be north of the site and immediately adjacent to the I131S building. The I131N building would have an area of approximately 820,000 sf and be six stories tall, or approximately 114 feet. The I131N building would also include 808,000 sf of R&D uses that would be spread out across all levels of the proposed buildings. The ground floor of the I131N building would include a lobby, approximately 4,000 sf of conference space, and 8,000 sf of restaurant/cafe space. In addition, the I131N building would also incorporate outdoor terraces on multiple levels for use by the building tenants.
Figure 2-3
Existing Zoning Designation
\\
P
D
C
C
I
T
R
D
S
G
I
S
0
1
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
C
i
t
y
_
o
f
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
S
a
n
_
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
\
1
0
4
6
6
8
_
0
_
1
_
1
S
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
_
1
3
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
o
c
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
_
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
.
a
p
r
x
;
U
s
e
r
:
5
8
3
0
3
;
D
a
t
e
:
1
2
/
6
/
2
0
2
3
Project Site
Off-Site Redesignation Parcels
Zone
Business Technology Park-High
Mixed Industrial High
Mixed Industrial Medium
Open Space
Parks and Recreation
T3 Makers Lindenville
T6 Urban Core
T5 Corridor
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000
0 500250
Feet
Sources: City of South San Francisco 2023, ESRI
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
OWNER
ARCHITECT
One Maritime Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94111
CONSULTANTS / ENGINEERS
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
DRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
NO
T
F
O
R
CON
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
STEELWAVE101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 800SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
4683 Chabot Drive #300,Pleasanton, CA 94588
Civil:
555 Beach St floor 4,San Francisco, CA 94133
Landscaping:
Lighting:
304 S Broadway #300,Los Angeles, CA 90013 560 14th St #300,Oakland, CA 94612
Parking:
1900 Powell St #890,Emeryville, CA 94608
Trash Management:
1617 Clay Street,Oakland, CA 94612
Traffic:
KEYPLAN
N
SEAL
L02.01
LANDSCAPE PLAN
0 50 100 200
SH
A
W
R
O
A
D
S
L
O
U
G
H
F
U
T
U
R
E
O
V
E
R
P
A
S
S
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
L
C
O
U
R
T
P
R
O
D
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
ADJACENT PROPERTY
SOUTH COURTYARD
131 GARAGE
NORTH COURTYARD
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
1
0
1
S
A
N
M
A
T
E
O
A
V
E
N
U
E
131S C
131S B
131S A
131N B
131N A
131S D
I
N
F
I
N
I
T
E
R
O
W
PROPOSED DAYCARE
10
10
9
12
3
6
6
16
14
6
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
4
15
15
11
11
14
157
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
14
16
14
17
17
9
1
6
8
4
4
8
8
8
14
9
9
10
10
13
13
15
15
15
11
15
15
15
1 VEHICULAR ENTRANCE
2 ROAD (SEE ARCH FOR FIREACCESS)
3 SURFACE PARKING
4 SERVICE YARD
5 LOADING AREA
6 PERIMETER PATH (10’ WIDE BIKE AND PEDESTRIANSHARED)
7 PROMENADE (20’ WIDE)
8 INFINITELOOP (10’ WIDE)
9 VEHICULAR DROP-OFF
10 SHUTTLE DROP-OFF
11 MECHANICAL BOLLARDS (FOR SHUTTLE + FIREACCESS)
12 FIXED BOLLARDS
13 LARGE EVENT/RECREATIONALSPACE
14 LOBBY ENTRANCE
15 SILVACELL/BIORETENTIONAREA
16 PLANTING (FOR WINDMITIGATION)
17 RETAINING WALL
18 PEDESTRIAN WALK (SEEARCHFOREGRESS)
LEG END
ADJACENT PROPERTY
11
11
7
7
10
10
11
NOT PART OF PROJECT
Source: SteelWave and SOM LLP, 2024.
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
s
…
1
0
4
6
6
8
(
2
-
1
4
-
2
0
2
4
)
J
C
Figure 2-4
Conceptual Site Plan
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-5 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The proposed project would provide a day-care center north of the I131N parking garage in the northwestern portion of the project site. The day-care center would have an area of approximately 4,050 sf and be one story, or approximately 16 feet. In addition to the proposed day-care center building, approximately 4,950 sf of outdoor play areas would be provided and protected with fencing; the surrounding landscaping and trees would be minimal. The proposed day-care center would have nine employees and accommodate up to 50 children. It would be operational Monday through Friday and be open to employees of the proposed project as well as the public. A total of twenty-four 500-kilowatt (kW) emergency generators would be provided on the project site, which would be used in the event of power grid failure. Of the 24 generators, 18 of them would be located outdoors, at grade, and in service yards in acoustic enclosures. The remaining six emergency generators would be located inside of the I131N building on the ground floor in a separate generator room. Generators would be tested monthly, most likely on weekends or during non-business operating hours. Generator testing would take place within designated hours when noise restrictions are not an issue. The upper floors of the proposed I131N and I131S buildings, not including the amenity building (i.e., I131S D) and day-care center, would provide direct views to San Francisco Bay, Sign Hill Park, San Bruno Mountain, and the hills west of Interstate 280; views of the landscaped courtyards below would also be provided. As stated previously, the buildings would be linked together through a cohesive network of landscaping and open space. The two central landscaped courtyards would be located along the interior of the project site and framed by the shape of the proposed I131N and I131S buildings to prioritize pedestrian- and bike-friendly connections as well as outdoor amenities. The proposed project would include approximately 115,130 sf of open space in the courtyards, which would be publicly accessible, providing space for outdoor work, recreation, and socializing through the use of seat walls, paved areas, turf, as well as shade structures.
2.5.1 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking As depicted in Figure 2-4, vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a driveway on Terminal Court and a right-of-way connection from the southwestern portion of the project site to Shaw Road, to the south, through an existing access easement. Internal roads would be configured to circle the I131N building and the entire project site in a loop formation, providing access to buildings, parking, and on-site amenities. The proposed project would provide a total of 2,976 parking spaces. The I131N parking garage would be west of the I131N A and I131N B buildings. It would include 1,378 parking spaces in three levels of below-grade parking and nine levels of above-grade parking, along with 20 surface parking spaces. The I131S parking garage would be located beneath the I131S building. It would provide 1,538 parking spaces, along with 40 surface parking spaces. Approximately six surface parking spaces and 50 garage parking spaces would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compatible. In addition, per the California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as CALGreen, approximately 45 percent of the total number of parking spaces (i.e., approximately 1,339 spaces) would be electric-vehicle (EV) capable to accommodate future installation of EV chargers. Of the approximately 1,339 spaces, 33 percent (or approximately 442 spaces) would be provided with EV charging stations.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-6 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Street improvements along Terminal Court and the right-of-way connection to Shaw Road would include new curbs, landscaping, and sidewalks. The proposed project would also include pedestrian pathways along the exterior and throughout the interior of the project site to provide connections between the buildings and the courtyards. A total of 176 bicycle parking spaces would be provided throughout the site, consisting of 149 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 27 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the lobby entrances to the proposed buildings. The long-term bicycle parking spaces, as well as showers, would be provided on the ground floor of the I131N and I131S buildings and within a bicycle storage room in the parking garage. Dedicated access to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided via Terminal Court and the Shaw Road connection. The proposed project would allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings through the proposed roadway network within the project site. The project site would include 20- to 26-foot-wide fire lanes around the perimeter of the project site, providing access to each building, as well as the I131N parking garage. Although not proposed as part of the project, the project sponsor may, in the future, purchase up to 2 acres of undetermined industrial zoned land fronting San Mateo Boulevard and build an aboveground parking structure to serve the proposed project. This land could provide an additional access and/or egress point to the project site for a more dispersed traffic flow. Such an improvement, if pursued, would be subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. It is not evaluated as part of the proposed project.
2.5.2 Transportation Demand Management The proposed project would require submittal of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the Planning Division for review and approval as part of the entitlement process, per the requirements of the City Municipal Code and General Plan. A TDM plan is intended to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new development, manage congestion, and promote the efficient use of the existing transportation network through the adoption of TDM measures and ongoing monitoring and reporting in accordance with the City’s TDM Ordinance (Chapter 20.400). The proposed project’s TDM plan lays out measures to reduce peak-hour travel demand and encourage alternative modes of transportation to reduce single-occupant vehicle use. The specific measures are still preliminary but are anticipated to include:
• On-site Amenities for Bicycle and Pedestrian Access—The project would provide new connections and on-site circulation paths with pedestrian walkways between all core buildings, bicycle routes through the site, and a new trail along the navigable slough that would connect to Shaw Road. The project would provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces in various locations throughout the project site, bicycle repair areas, and showers and changing rooms.
• Shuttle Service to Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) – The TDM Plan would provide first-/last-mile shuttle service to the San Bruno BART station and South San Francisco Caltrain station.
• Carpooling and Vanpooling Programs and Parking – The TDM Plan would ensure that employer tenants would offer carpool and vanpool programs that would include subsidies or other monetary incentives, dedicated carpool and vanpool parking, as well as ride-matching services to help facilitate shared trips. Elements of the carpool program, such as ride-matching, would be provided in partnership with Commute.org.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-7 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
• Telecommuting and Flexible Work Schedules – The TDM Plan would encourage employers to allow telecommuting at least one day per week to reduce the overall number of trips. In addition, when employees commute to work, employers would encourage flexible work schedules to shift travel outside of peak hours.
• Fully Subsidized Transit Passes – The TDM Plan would offer transit passes or subsidies, which would be implemented through either a direct voucher program provided by the property manager or through lease terms that would obligate employers to provide subsidies.
• Other TDM Plan Features – The TDM Plan would include a range of features, such as on-site amenities, including dining, fitness, and conference facilities, as well as active transportation gap closures and transit capital improvements. As required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the TDM Plan would include requirements for monitoring and auditing the performance of the measures, which may be revised or amended as needed to meet TDM performance objectives. Implementation of the TDM Plan would be monitored annually and adjusted accordingly, if necessary, in order to meet required alternative-use goals. Leases for all tenants would include provisions regarding the mandatory TDM measures and appointment of a TDM coordinator, who may be shared among multiple tenants.
2.5.3 Lighting Lighting would include canopy-mounted linear lighting as well as linear LED uplight-type wall-mounted units on the exterior of the buildings and at building entrances. Exterior pole-mounted fixtures would be provided in open space areas, vehicular circulation areas, and other hardscaped areas. In addition, low-level pedestrian lighting would be provided along pedestrian pathways and the terrace areas. All exterior lighting would conform to the City Zoning Code, Section 20.300.009,
Lighting and Illumination.
2.5.4 Building Design and Sustainability Features As stated previously, the proposed project would be designed so that the buildings would be tied together through landscaping and open space. Specifically, the proposed project would incorporate two central courtyards located along the interior of the project site and framed by the shape of the I131N and I131S buildings to prioritize pedestrian- and bike-friendly connections and the available outdoor amenities. In addition, the proposed amenities, including the day-care center, fitness center, restaurant/cafe, conference rooms, and lobbies, on the ground-floor level of each of the R&D buildings would be accessible from a network of interconnected pathways as well as through the central courtyards. As depicted in Figure 2-5, the proposed buildings would have primarily glass façades, thereby bringing an abundance of natural light into each building. Building exteriors would also incorporate combinations of unitized curtain walls, glass storefronts, and aluminum panels evoke a modern aesthetic. The proposed buildings would have metal-panel parapets to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. The I131N parking garage would be constructed out of materials similar to those on the proposed buildings, including perforated metal panels, aluminum panels, painted concrete, and clear glazed glass.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-8 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The proposed project would incorporate sustainability features to reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. In addition, it would achieve, at a minimum, a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), version 4.1, Building Design and Construction (BD+C) Core and Shell Gold rating as well as WELL v2 Core certification.5 Proposed sustainability measures would include an all-electric building design; on-site renewable energy in the form of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels; a high-performance building envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems; ultra-efficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures; low-water demand native and/or adapted vegetation with efficient irrigation systems; on-site recycling and composting facilities; and EV charging infrastructure. Proposed design elements, such as pedestrian circulation improvements, bicycle parking, and TDM measures, would encourage alternative forms of transportation. In addition, the proposed project would be designed to be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and CALGreen. For construction and demolition, 100 percent of all inert solids (i.e., building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (i.e., all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project would also be designed to conserve resources and protect water quality through the management of stormwater runoff using low-impact development (LID) methods, where feasible. This approach implements engineered controls to allow stormwater filtering, storage, and flood control. Bioretention basins, flow-through planters, Silva Cell units, and other site design features to manage stormwater runoff flows and reduce stormwater pollution would be located throughout the project site.
2.5.5 Landscaping As discussed above, there are no trees on the project site and little to no vegetation. All vegetation would be removed prior to project construction. The proposed project would include a landscape plan to compensate for the removal of vegetation and enhance the overall development. The landscape plan would include planting trees on-site, in accordance with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 13.30). Upon project buildout, 659 trees would be provided within the courtyard areas, surface parking lot, and along the roadways. Landscaped areas would include a mix of native and adapted vegetation with a low water demand; a minimum of 80 percent would be native vegetation. The proposed trees and all other landscaping would be planted in compliance with City regulations.
2.5.6 Employees Upon project completion, there would be a total of 3,787 employees, consisting of approximately 3,778 R&D employees and nine day-care center employees.6 The net increase in on-site employment would amount to approximately 3,312 employees. 5 The WELL Building Standards are performance-based building standards for measuring and monitoring features within the built environment that may affect human health through air, water, light, and other concepts. The standards provide ways for buildings to be designed to improve human comfort and enhance health and wellness within the built environment. 6 The estimated number of employees is based on data provided by the project applicant, which assumes that average square footage per R&D employee would be 450, consistent with the General Plan EIR employee generation rate assumptions. The estimated number of employees associated with the proposed restaurant and fitness center is accounted for in the estimate of the number of employees associated with the proposed R&D uses.
Source: SteelWave and SOM LLP, 2023
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
s
…
1
0
4
6
6
8
(
0
6
-
0
7
-
2
0
2
3
)
J
C
Figure 2-5
Rendering from U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway)
[this page left blank intentionally]
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-9 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
2.5.7 Utilities The project site is serviced by existing public utility easements for water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, telecommunications, and waste and recycling services. New on-site facilities would be connected to new services through the installation of new localized connections. Any expansion or increase in the capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. Detailed descriptions of the proposed utility infrastructure are provided below.
2.5.7.1 Water Supply The city is served by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Specifically, the city is in the service area of Cal Water’s South San Francisco District, which includes South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and Broadmoor. The Cal Water South San Francisco District utilizes both groundwater from the Westside Basin as well as imported surface water purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). On-site water system improvements would include the pipes, valves, fire hydrants, meters and submeters, and backflow preventers needed to serve the proposed uses. The proposed project would include an extension to the 12-inch public main in Terminal Court. The extension would loop around the site and provide connections to building laterals for domestic water and fire water, irrigation, and fire hydrant needs. The proposed project assumes a 4-inch private lateral for domestic water and a minimum 8-inch pipe for the private fire lateral. The main points of connection for the water line would be the new 8-inch water main that would be implemented as part of development at the 101 Terminal Court adjacent to the project site, and the existing 12-inch public water main in Terminal Court. An option that would loop into a Shaw Road connection is being explored as well. However, such an option is not part of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (EIR) and therefore would be subject to future CEQA review if pursued.
2.5.7.2 Wastewater The City owns and maintains the sanitary sewer system and related infrastructure within public rights-of-way. The collected wastewater is conveyed to the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) adjacent to San Francisco Bay on Colma Creek. Proposed sewer system improvements would include a new 18-inch sanitary sewer main through the southwest corner of the site to a 21-inch main on Shaw Road to support the proposed project. Proposed on-site sewer pipes would be between 4 and 18 inches in diameter and connect to the upsized sewer main beneath the navigable slough.
2.5.7.3 Stormwater The City owns and maintains the storm drainage infrastructure within public rights-of-way. For the majority of the project site, storm drain lines would follow the existing drainage pattern and outfall into the adjacent slough. Oversized underground pipes would treat water, help store water, and control flows prior to discharge to the adjacent slough. On the northern portion of the site, smaller areas would drain to the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system on Terminal Court. On-site storm drain improvements would include the installation of bioretention ponds, flow-through planters, and Silva Cell units to provide LID treatment on the project site. The proposed stormwater pipes would be between 6 and 12 inches in diameter. New connections would connect to an existing 12-inch storm drain main in Terminal Court.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-10 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
2.5.7.4 Dry Utilities Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides both electricity and natural gas services to the city. As a California Public Utilities Commission–regulated public utility in the state of California, PG&E owns, operates, and maintains above- and belowground electric and natural gas facilities in the city, including substations. The city is also served by both wired and wireless telecommunications from numerous providers, including AT&T, Comcast, Viasat, and T-Mobile.7 The project proposes the installation of new connections for dry utility service. All electrical and telecommunication utilities would be connected to existing electrical and telecommunication utilities. The proposed project would not include any new connections for natural gas, which would not be used by the project.
2.5.7.5 Solid Waste The South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer provide solid waste disposal services citywide, including garbage and recycling services.8 The South San Francisco Scavenger Company transports all solid waste to the Blue Line Transfer facility at 500 East Jamie Court where solid waste is processed, treated, and transported to other disposal facilities. The Blue Line Transfer facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day.9 Any trash remaining after the usable materials have been separated at the transfer facility are transported to the Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill or the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. The project site would continue to be served by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer. State law requires trash to be collected in three separate streams: waste, mixed recycling, and compost, in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 341, AB 1826, and Senate Bill (SB) 1383. The City requires further separation of mixed recycling into paper, containers, and cardboard. The proposed project would comply with City requirements. Trash from proposed buildings would be collected in five different streams, including waste, recyclables, and compostable materials. Recyclable materials would be further sorted into paper, container, and cardboard types of materials. The proposed project would have two central trash locations per building, for a total of four. The trash areas would be adjacent to the loading areas and connected to the service elevators.
2.6 Project Construction The proposed project would be constructed in eight phases, including demolition of the warehouse buildings, administrative building, and open air structures. After receipt of the building permit, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to take approximately 5 years, with construction on the southern portion of the project site beginning in March 2026 and ending in October 2028 and construction on the northern portion of the project site beginning in November 2028 and ending in May 2031. The phases of construction would consist of (1) rough 7 BroadBandNow. 2023. Business Internet Providers in South San Francisco, California. Available: https://broadbandnow.com/business/California/South-San-Francisco. Accessed: April 12, 2023. 8 South San Francisco Scavenger Company. n.d. About Us. Available: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/. Accessed: June 3, 2024. 9 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2024. Blue Line MRF and TS. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1598?siteID=3259. Accessed: June 3, 2024.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-11 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
grading and site demolition, (2) deep foundation installation, (3) foundation installation, (4) superstructure construction, (5) building enclosure construction, (6) interior buildout, (7) sitework, and (8) final building inspections. Demolition, grading, and excavation would generate approximately 40,214 cubic yards (cy) of material, including removed fencing, building materials, concrete, soil, and asphalt. In addition, during demolition and grading, approximately 70,000 cy of soil would be imported for site preparation.10 The proposed project would excavate to a depth of approximately 3 to 7 feet below the ground surface for utility work. The average level of the project site is 6 feet above sea level. The maximum depth of excavation would be 5 feet below sea level for the sanitary sewer main upgrade. The haul route for demolition materials would be U.S. 101, with trucks traveling from the project site either northbound or southbound. Trucks using the northbound haul route would exit the project site, travel from Produce Avenue to Mitchell Avenue, then continue to South Airport Boulevard and the on-ramp located off the boulevard. Trucks using the southbound haul route would exit the project site, then make a right turn from Terminal Court to the Produce Avenue on-ramp. The haul route for deliveries or trucks returning to the project site would be in the opposite direction. The hours of construction would be stipulated by the City Building Division. The project contractor would be required to comply with Section 8.32.050 of the City Municipal Code (i.e., the City Noise Ordinance), which includes regulations related to noise generated by construction. Project construction would typically occur Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., although some work is anticipated to occur on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. or on Sundays between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Approximately 172 instances of nighttime or early-morning construction work may occur (e.g., drilling work, steel erection, concrete pouring). Drilling and steel erection, with use of a crane, may begin as early as 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The drilling and crane work would take place during these early morning hours over an estimated 40 days and 105 days, respectively. Concrete pouring may occur during nighttime or early-morning hours, with approximately 5 nights of concrete pours potentially starting between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. and an additional 22 nights between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Construction is not anticipated to occur on legal holidays. Project construction would use, on average, approximately 1,303,405 gallons (or 4 acre-feet) of water per year over the approximately 5-year construction period. Dewatering may be required during project construction, depending on the weather at the time of construction. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be implemented during project construction. Furthermore, an approximately 15-foot buffer would be incorporated between construction work areas in the southern portion of the project site and the top of the bank of the navigable slough.
10 To provide a conservative estimate, the analysis of construction impacts on air quality, noise, and transportation in Sections 4.2, Air Quality; 4.5, Noise and Vibration; and 4.6, Transportation and Circulation, assume that 170,000 cy of soil would be imported.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-12 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
2.7 General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Code
Amendments As described above, the project site is currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Lindenville Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. In order to construct and operate the proposed project, a General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code amendment would be required to redesignate the site as BTP-H. The BTP-H land use designation allows for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan describes the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. As currently written, City Zoning Code Section 20.040.009.A.4, Excluded from Floor Area in Calculating FAR, states that active ground-floor uses in a new mixed-use or nonresidential development east of 101 and in the T4C, T4M, and T5C zoning districts can be excluded from FAR calculations, provided that the nonresidential uses are active and open to the general public. Excluded uses from FAR calculations in these zoning districts include, but are not limited to, childcare facilities, personal services, retail establishments, full-service or limited-service restaurants, and similar active uses. The proposed project would amend City Zoning Code Section 20.040.009.A.4 to add BTP-H zoning districts within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area to the covered zoning districts so that the proposed day-care center would be excluded from FAR calculations. With this amendment, the proposed project would be within the allowable FAR for the BTP-H zoning designation, as described in more detail in the following paragraph. As established in the City Zoning Code, under the BTP-H zoning designation, the maximum surface area covered by structures (i.e., lot coverage) is limited to 60 percent, with a minimum of 15 percent of the site made up of landscaping. The base maximum permitted FAR under the BTP-H zoning designation is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 2.0, for uses such as R&D facilities or development meeting specific TDM, off-site improvement, or design standards. In addition, the zoning ordinance provides specific exceptions to FAR limitations for projects, based on a Community Benefits Program (see City Municipal Code Chapter 20.395). The proposed project would have a FAR of 2.0, consistent with the requirements of the BTP-H zoning designation. In addition to the above General Plan and City Zoning Code amendment for the Infinite 131 project site, the proposed project would include additional amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan and City Zoning Code to redesignate five parcels north of the project site, across Terminal Court, at 120 Terminal Court, 196 Produce Avenue, 160 Produce Avenue, and 140 Produce Avenue (APNs 015-113-350, 015-113-290, 015-113-340, 015-113-330, 015-113-320). The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan and City Zoning Code; they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. Further, the redesignation of these parcels would be consistent with Specific Plan Policy LU-5.2, Golden Gate Produce Terminal and
Park N’ Fly sites, which encourages parcel assemblage of the Park N’ Fly site (160 Produce Avenue) and the Golden Gate Produce Terminal site (131 Terminal Court) to encourage
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-13 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
developers to create a master plan and an appropriate environmental analysis for office and R&D uses on the site. As stated above, the five parcels total approximately 7.28 acres and currently comprise a large Park N’ Fly surface parking lot and a Shell gas station. The purpose of the off-site redesignation parcels is to ensure that future development is cohesive and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. Because the project sponsor does not own the five off-site redesignation parcels, the proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. Therefore, no direct impacts on the environment would occur. However, the analysis in Chapter 4 of the EIR evaluates the reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts that could result from the proposed off-site redesignation parcels. Future development within the five parcels would be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA, potentially tiering from the analysis for the off-site redesignation parcels in the EIR. Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 illustrate the proposed land use and zoning designations for the project site, off-site redesignation parcels, and the surrounding area.
2.8 Required Permits and Approvals Implementation of the proposed project would require certain entitlements and approvals from the City and other agencies. Table 2-2 lists the entitlements and approvals, which would be subject to review and approval by the City and other agencies, required for the proposed project.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 2
Project Description
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 2-14 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Table 2-2. Required Permits and Approvals for the Proposed Project
Agency Permit/Review Required City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council:
● General Plan Amendments
● Specific Plan Amendments
● Zoning Code Amendments
● Design Review
● TDM Plan Approval
● Subdivision Map
● Development Agreement Engineering Division:
● Grading Permit(s)
● Encroachment Permit(s)
● Site Plan Check
● Hauling Permit(s) Building Division:
● Building Permit(s)
● Certificate of Occupancy Other:
● Fire Code Compliance California Department of Transportation* ● Encroachment Permit California Regional Water Quality Control Board* ● Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Bay Area Air Quality Management District ● Stationary-Source Permit (Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate) for Generators or Similar Equipment City/County Association of Governments, Airport Land Use Commission ● Determination of Consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Federal Aviation Administration ● Notice of Proposed Construction and Alteration and Federal Aviation Administration Determination per Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Part 77.9 Bay Conservation and Development Commission* ● Permit for Work in the shoreline band pursuant to McAteer-Petris Act Government Code Sections 66600 to 66684 *A responsible agency.
Figure 2-6
Proposed General Plan Amendments
\\
P
D
C
C
I
T
R
D
S
G
I
S
0
1
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
C
i
t
y
_
o
f
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
S
a
n
_
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
\
1
0
4
6
6
8
_
0
_
1
_
1
S
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
_
1
3
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
o
c
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
_
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
.
a
p
r
x
;
U
s
e
r
:
5
8
3
0
3
;
D
a
t
e
:
1
2
/
6
/
2
0
2
3
0 500250
Feet
Project Site
Off-Site Redesignation Parcels
Land Use
Creek
East of 101 Mixed Use
Business and Professional Office
Business Technology Park High
High Density Mixed Use
Mixed Industrial
Mixed Industrial High
Industrial Transition Zone
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
Transportation
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000 Sources: City of South San Francisco 2022, ESRI
Figure 2-7
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
\\
P
D
C
C
I
T
R
D
S
G
I
S
0
1
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
C
i
t
y
_
o
f
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
S
a
n
_
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
\
1
0
4
6
6
8
_
0
_
1
_
1
S
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
_
1
3
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
o
c
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
\
L
a
n
d
_
U
s
e
_
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
.
a
p
r
x
;
U
s
e
r
:
5
8
3
0
3
;
D
a
t
e
:
1
2
/
6
/
2
0
2
3
Project Site
Off-Site Redesignation Parcels
Zone
Business Technology Park-High
Business and Professional Office
Community Commercial
Mixed Industrial High
Mixed Industrial Medium
Open Space
Parks and Recreation
T4 Maker
T6 Urban Core
T5 Corridor
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000
0 500250
Feet
Sources: City of South San Francisco 2022, ESRI
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-1 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21061 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 15150, this analysis incorporates by reference the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) and the Lindenville Specific Plan (Specific Plan) Addendum. Where information is incorporated by reference, the information is briefly described or summarized (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]). Refer to Chapter 1 of this environmental impact report (EIR) for the location where the General Plan EIR and Specific Plan Addendum are available for public inspection.
3.1 Aesthetics
Environmental Issue Area
Further
Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-
Significant Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.1.1 Setting The project site is located on the west side of the U.S. 101 corridor, within the Lindenville Specific Plan area, which is characterized as a low-density industrial area with large blocks of industrial and warehouse buildings of varying sizes, paved parking, and minimal landscaping. The style of buildings within the Specific Plan area is predominantly utilitarian, with concrete, metal, and stucco façades. Land uses surrounding the project site include industrial and commercial uses. Specifically, Terminal Court and a large Park N’ Fly surface parking lot are north of the project site, a large surface parking lot and U.S. 101 (known as Bayshore Freeway) are adjacent to the eastern portion of the project site, a navigable slough that feeds into San Bruno Canal is south of the project site, and several mixed industrial and commercial buildings and San Mateo Avenue are west of the project site. In addition, the project site is approximately 1 mile west of San Francisco Bay (Bay) and
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-2 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
0.30 mile west of a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail that runs along San Bruno Canal. The southern part of the project site includes a portion of the shoreline band jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) adjacent to the navigable slough. The project site is also approximately 1 mile northwest of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The project site is currently occupied by the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, a produce market, and associated surface parking. The site consists of two warehouse buildings and a smaller administration building. The site is also developed with open-air structures, including loading docks and trash compactors, which are associated with operations at the Golden Gate Produce Terminal. The topography of the project site is relatively flat, approximately 6 feet above mean sea level.1 There is little to no on-site landscaping, and there are no trees on the project site.2 The off-site redesignation parcels are north of the project site, across Terminal Court, at 120 Terminal Court, 196 Produce Avenue, 160 Produce Avenue, and 140 Produce Avenue. The off-site redesignation parcels currently comprise a large Park N’ Fly surface parking lot and a Shell gas station.
3.1.2 Discussion Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21061 and CEQA Guidelines 15150, this analysis incorporates by reference the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan Addendum. Where information is incorporated by reference, the information is briefly described or summarized (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]). Refer to Chapter 1 of this EIR for the location where the General Plan EIR and Specific Plan Addendum are available for public inspection.
3.1.2.1 Scenic Vistas In the vicinity of the project site, views of the South San Francisco hillside sign, Sign Hill, San Bruno Mountain, and the Coast Range are visible in the background when facing north or west. However, the Lindenville Specific Plan area is relatively flat, resulting in limited views. These elevated features are viewed mainly through channelized view corridors (i.e., areas between buildings and vegetation in the immediate foreground). Visual resources to the east, such as the Bay and the Bay Trail along San Bruno Canal, are generally not visible from the vicinity of the project site because of the flat topography, distance, and intervening structures that provide visual separations. Similarly, the project site is not visible from the Bay or the Bay Trail. The project site and its surroundings are not considered scenic vistas or scenic resources. Therefore, the obstruction of background views from the surrounding areas and adjacent roadways would not affect scenic vistas or scenic resources. Nearby areas with higher elevations, such as the site for the South San Francisco hillside sign, Sign Hill, and San Bruno Mountain, provide vistas of the city, the Bay, and the surrounding region. The project site is partially visible from these areas; however, the project site is viewed as a minor element in the expansive views, which encompass the urbanized setting of South San Francisco, the surrounding cities, and SFO, with the Bay in the middleground and the Coast Range and the East Bay Hills in the background. The height of the proposed buildings (i.e., a maximum of 113 feet 6 inches to the top of the rooftop appurtenances) would not substantially affect these views because of the 1 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco. April 2022. 2 HMH Engineers. 2022. Terminal 131 Certified Tree Inventory. July 27, 2022.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-3 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
distance between the viewers and the project site. In addition, the proposed buildings would be viewed as a small component in the vast expanse of these views. Furthermore, the proposed buildings would not obstruct views of the Bay, sky, or the Coast Range as seen from higher elevations. Although the proposed building heights would be greater than those of the buildings immediately adjacent to the project site, they would be generally consistent with the multi-story buildings in the downtown area adjacent to U.S. 101, which have a maximum height of 85 feet. The proposed project would continue the pattern of mid-rise building development along the west side of the U.S. 101 corridor. The proposed building heights would not substantially affect vistas because of the distance between the viewers and the project site; the superior position of viewers relative to the project site (i.e., at a higher elevation); the built-out, urban nature of the city; and the vast expanse of these views. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas. The development application for the proposed project will be reviewed under the design review procedures in Chapter 20.480 (Design Review) of the City of South San Francisco (City) Zoning Ordinance, including Section 20.480.006 (Design Review Criteria), which specifically states that a site that is subject to design review shall be graded and developed with due regard for the natural terrain, aesthetic quality, and landscaping so as not to impair the environmental quality in the area. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with policies and actions of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan (General Plan) that are designed to protect view corridors, scenic resources, and natural features. The proposed project would adhere to City standards, ensuring that impacts on scenic vistas would remain less than significant.
3.1.2.2 Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway The proposed project would not be located adjacent to, or in view of, a designated state scenic highway or corridor. The closest designated scenic highway is Interstate (I) 280, which is approximately 1.7 miles west of the project site. State Route (SR) 35, which is 2.5 miles to the west, is eligible for designation as a state scenic highway. Most of the views of South San Francisco from these corridors are shielded by trees and buildings. Because of the distance, the project site is not visible from any portion of I-280 or SR-35. Therefore, no impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway or corridor would occur.
3.1.2.3 Visual Character The following discussion evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with key regulations governing scenic quality. For purposes of this evaluation, a conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would occur if the proposed project were to introduce a new visible element that would be inconsistent with regulations governing the overall scenic quality, scale, and character of surrounding development. The new element would need to be consistent with the City General Plan policies, Lindenville Specific Plan, City Zoning Ordinance, and City Municipal Code. This analysis considers consistency with City General Plan policies, Specific Plan policies, zoning, the land use designation, and City Municipal Code regulations governing scenic quality.
General Plan Per the General Plan, key components of quality building design involve using sustainable, long-lasting building materials; orienting buildings toward streets to create inviting spaces; and designing buildings that reflect local history. The General Plan seeks to facilitate a building design
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-4 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
that creates walkable and inviting spaces by locating parking behind buildings, allowing for outdoor plazas and dining areas, and locating building frontages in proximity to the sidewalk edge, where appropriate. The General Plan includes the relevant policies listed below that would assist in reducing or avoiding impacts from the proposed project related to visual quality.
Policy LU-5.2 requires high-quality designs and development standards for research-and-development (R&D) companies that support a mix of larger higher-intensity campuses. The proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses (i.e., industrial and operational uses associated with the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, along with open-air structures) and construct an R&D campus. The R&D uses and amenities would be constructed within seven buildings, ranging from one to six stories, along with two parking garages and additional surface parking. As shown in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3, buildings would be tied together through landscaping and open spaces to create a sustainable campus environment.
Policy LU-9.2 encourages distinctive architecture and elements that add visual interest to buildings to enhance people’s perceptions of South San Francisco as an interesting and inviting place. The proposed buildings would have primarily glass façades. Building exteriors would incorporate combinations of unitized curtain walls, glass storefronts, and aluminum panels to evoke a modern aesthetic. The proposed buildings would have metal-panel parapets to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. The I131N parking garage would be constructed out of materials similar to those on the proposed buildings, including perforated metal panels, aluminum panels, painted concrete, and clear glazed glass. The buildings, as depicted in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-3, would include distinctive architecture to provide visual interest, as seen from U.S. 101 and adjacent streets.
Policy LU-8.8 maintains and protects unique public views of the city, the Bay, and local landmarks from major thoroughfares and hillside open spaces. Public views from scenic vistas and scenic resources are analyzed in Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2, above. There are no trees at the project site and little to no vegetation or other scenic resources. In addition, there are no scenic resources within the immediate vicinity. Although a navigable slough is located immediately south of the project site, this is not identified as a scenic resource in the City’s General Plan. However, the project site is visible from major throughfares, such as U.S. 101, and other public viewing areas, such as Shaw Road. Although these locations are not considered scenic views or unique public views, the proposed buildings would be highly visible and would partially block views of scenic resources, as seen from the aforementioned areas. As shown in Figure 3.1-1 (existing conditions), there are unobstructed views of the project site from southbound U.S. 101 as well as northbound U.S. 101. In addition, motorists traveling northbound have views of scenic resources such as Sign Hill, the South San Francisco hillside sign, and San Bruno Mountain in the background beyond the site. Motorists traveling southbound have views of the Coast Range in the background beyond the site. As depicted in Figure 3.1-1 (proposed conditions), the proposed buildings at the project site would be visible from U.S. 101 and considerably taller than the existing development in the immediate area. However, the proposed landscaping, which would be visible along the eastern perimeter, would soften the proposed project’s appearance and reduce its visual contrast with the surrounding landscape. In addition, although the proposed buildings would obstruct the majority of views of Sign Hill, the South San Francisco hillside sign, San Bruno Mountain, and the Coast Range from this segment of the U.S. 101 corridor, U.S. 101 is not a designated scenic route. The freeway is highly traveled; however, motorists have only fleeting views of the project site because of the speeds permitted on U.S. 101 and because users of U.S. 101
Figure 3.1-1US 101 Northbound Facing South
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
s
…
1
0
4
6
6
8
(
1
2
-
1
1
-
2
0
2
3
)
J
C
a. Existing
b. Proposed
[this page left blank intentionally]
Figure 3.1-2San Mateo Avenue Facing East
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
s
…
1
0
4
6
6
8
(
1
0
-
2
6
-
2
0
2
3
)
J
C
a. Existing
b. Proposed
[this page left blank intentionally]
Figure 3.1-3Shaw Road Facing North
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
s
…
1
0
4
6
6
8
(
1
0
-
3
0
-
2
0
2
3
)
J
C
a. Existing
b. Proposed
[this page left blank intentionally]
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-5 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
typically direct their attention to the freeway ahead rather than views from the freeway. The views of the project site from U.S. 101 do not constitute unique public views, and motorists on U.S. 101 are not considered sensitive viewers. As shown in Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 (existing conditions), because of the flat topography, existing features on the majority of the project site are visible only from San Mateo Avenue and Shaw Road (i.e., from certain viewpoints between intervening buildings and vegetation). However, highly channelized views of San Bruno Mountain are available between buildings and vegetation when facing north on Shaw Road. The new buildings under the proposed project would be visible from San Mateo Avenue and Shaw Road (Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 [proposed conditions]) and would block the majority of the existing background views of San Bruno Mountain. However, Shaw Road is in an industrial area that is surrounded by warehouse buildings and U.S. 101 and not considered a unique public view.
Policy SA-32.5 requires landscaping buffers and other buffers to reduce noise, visual, and air quality impacts associated with U.S. 101. As shown in Figure 3.1-1 (proposed conditions), dense landscaping would be provided along the eastern perimeter of the project site, within view of U.S. 101. This would provide a buffer between the proposed buildings and U.S. 101 to reduce noise, visual, and air quality impacts associated with the freeway.
Policy LU-8.4 requires new development to add street trees, as well as other attractive landscaping, along streets and public spaces to provide shade and contribute positively toward public health outcomes and climate mitigation and adaptation. The proposed project would include trees along the perimeter of the project site, creating a visual buffer between the project site and the surrounding areas. The proposed project would be consistent with the policies outlined in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable policies in the General Plan that govern scenic quality in an urbanized area, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Lindenville Specific Plan The Lindenville Specific Plan, adopted in September 2023, establishes the planning framework for the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. The Specific Plan includes design and development standards and policies that can be applied to redevelop the area from a strictly industrial area to an area with a diverse mix of land uses with high-quality designs, open spaces, and blue-green infrastructure that still retains its industrial uses. Chapter 4, Design and Development Standards, of the Specific Plan contains development standards specific to the Specific Plan area, based on the character area and zoning districts, which define the “look and feel” of each character area. Specific Plan Policy DD-2.1 encourages buildings of various heights and sizes, Policy DD-2.2 encourages tall buildings to provide distinct open space, Policy DD-2.3 requires a visually interesting façade, Policy DD-2.4 facilitates high-quality architecture to create a coherent place, and Policy DD-3.2 requires dedication of new public park and open spaces. As described in more detail above, the proposed project would be consistent with these policies, which are similar to those presented in the General Plan. In addition, the City’s design review process would ensure that future developments would be consistent with the applicable City regulations governing scenic quality. Furthermore, under the Specific Plan, the project site would be designated as Mixed Industrial High (MIH), which would allow for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-6 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
In order to construct and operate the proposed project, a Specific Plan Amendment would be required to redesignate the site as BTP-H. Upon implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable regulations and policies in the Specific Plan that govern scenic quality, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Zoning Ordinance The City Zoning Ordinance contains architectural guidelines, design review criteria, lot and development standards, landscaping requirements, and other regulations for various land uses in order to promote aesthetic quality within the city and protect scenic views. In particular, Chapter 20.480 (Design Review) establishes procedure for design review, ensuring that development supports General Plan policies that preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods and that scenic vistas are protected. Section 20.480.006 (Design Review Criteria) identifies the criteria by which the design review board, chief planner, planning commission, or City Council evaluates applications and ensures that they conform to the policies of the General Plan, as well as any applicable specific plan, and are consistent with other policies or guidelines the City Council may adopt. The project site is designated in the City’s Zoning Code as MIH. As established in the City’s Zoning Code, the maximum building height allowed under the existing MIH zoning designation is 65 feet. A City Zoning Code amendment would be required for the proposed project to redesignate the site as BTP-H. The BTP-H land use designation allows for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. The land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. The proposed project would include an R&D facility that would encourage a campus environment, with proposed buildings linked together through a network of landscaping elements and open space. Therefore, upon implementation of the City Zoning Code amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable regulations in the zoning ordinance that govern scenic quality, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
Municipal Code – Tree Preservation Ordinance The City Municipal Code also contains rules and regulations related to visual character. Chapter 13.30 (Tree Preservation) requires the City, the private property owner, and/or project applicant to preserve, protect, and plant trees in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the city. The proposed project would include a landscape plan to compensate for the removal of vegetation and enhance the overall development. The landscape plan would include planting trees on-site, in accordance with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance. Upon project buildout, 659 trees would be provided within the courtyard areas, surface parking lot, and along the roadways. Landscaped areas would include a mix of native and adapted vegetation with low water demand; a minimum of 80 percent would be native vegetation. The proposed trees and all other landscaping would be planted in compliance with City regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable regulations in the City Municipal Code that govern scenic quality, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-7 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Climate Action Plan The Climate Action Plan includes actions that would improve the visual character of the city. Specifically, implementation of Action CS 2.1 would expand the canopy cover to reach the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan,3 which would improve the visual character of the city. As discussed above, there are no trees, or other vegetation, on the project site. However, upon project buildout, 659 trees would be provided within the courtyard areas, in the surface parking lot, and along the roadways. The proposed trees would serve to expand the overall canopy cover, thereby helping to improve visual character within the city. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable actions in the Climate Action Plan that govern scenic quality, resulting in less-than-
significant impacts.
3.1.2.4 Light and Glare Any new source of project-related light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. Lighting at the project site would include canopy-mounted linear lights as well as linear LED uplight-type wall-mounted units on the exterior of the buildings and at building entrances. Exterior pole-mounted fixtures would be provided in open space areas, vehicular circulation areas, and other hardscaped areas. In addition, low-level pedestrian lighting would be provided along pathways and in terrace areas. All exterior lighting would conform to the City Zoning Code, Section 20.300.009, Lighting and
Illumination. The Specific Plan also includes Policy OS-3.4, which requires development to mitigate lighting impacts by integrating “dark sky” best practices. Chapter 5.7.9, Exterior Lighting, prohibits lighting designs that could provide a visual hazard for aircraft, requires lighting near habitat areas to illuminate only areas of human use, and requires development projects to complete studies for exterior lighting. The project site is not near any light-sensitive receptors. The site is surrounded by transportation infrastructure, including U.S. 101. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial new off-site source of light or glare, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
3.1.2.5 Cumulative Impacts According to the evaluation above, the project would result in either a less-than-significant impact or no impact. However, cumulative impacts could occur when project impacts combine with impacts from nearby cumulative development. In particular, the Infinite 101 Project, which would be immediately adjacent to the project site to the east, could result in cumulative changes to the visual setting. The Infinite 101 Project would block the majority of the views of the proposed project from U.S. 101, but in general, the two projects would have a similar design and similar scale, height, and massing. Similar to the proposed project, any new projects, including the Infinite 101 Project, would be required to comply with design review regulations and policies identified in the analysis above within the City Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3 The City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), adopted in 2020, serves as a guide for managing, enhancing, and growing South San Francisco’s urban forest and community tree resources. The UFMP includes short-term actions and long-range planning goals to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy cover throughout South San Francisco.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-8 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.1.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for future development that is similar and consistent with development in the area. Although the new zoning would allow for taller buildings to be constructed in the future (65 feet under the MIH land use designation compared to height restrictions consistent with Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] regulations in the BTP-H land use designation), the allowance for taller buildings at the redesignation parcels would be consistent with that of the immediately surrounding properties. Future development on the redesignation parcels would be subject to the City’s design review process (City Municipal Code Chapter 20.480, Design Review), which would ensure that developments would be consistent with relevant City design policies and include high-quality designs that preserve or enhance existing visual resources and scenic vistas. In addition, future development would be subject to City Municipal Code Section 20.300.009, which establishes regulations to minimize sky brightness, glare, light trespass across property lines, and disruptions to nocturnal ecosystems, and the California Energy Code (Title 24), which regulates designs for lighting, such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lights on and off. The future development of the redesignation parcels would also be required to adhere to the policies in the Specific Plan. For these reasons, implementation of the redesignation parcels would result in less-than-significant impacts related to scenic vistas, visual resources, plans, and policies governing scenic quality as well as light and glare. No further evaluation in an EIR is required.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-9 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts on forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned for timberland production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in non-agricultural use or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3.2.1 Setting The California Department of Conservation maps the project site as “Urban and Built-Up” or “Other Land.”4 The department defines Urban and Built-Up land as “land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.” The Department of Conservation defines Other Land as “land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.”5 Neither of these designations falls under the 4 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: November 7, 2023. 5 California Department of Land Conservation. 2024. Important Farmland Categories. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx. Accessed: June 3, 2024.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-10 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
“important farmland” umbrella (i.e., Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance [Farmland]). No existing agricultural or forestry land uses occur within the city, and no portion of the city is designated as an agricultural or forestry resource by the City or the State of California (State).6 The City does not have any active Williamson Act contracts.7
3.2.2 Discussion The project site and all surrounding lands within the city are identified as Urban and Built-up Land by the California Department of Conservation, with no “important farmland” (i.e., Farmland). Consequently, there is no potential for the project to result in the conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural uses, and no land within the project site is agricultural land under a Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contract. Because there is currently no livestock grazing at the project site, there would be no impact related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. In addition, the project site is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland production under the General Plan, Specific Plan, or City Zoning Code. Because there is no forestland on the project site, there would be no impact related to the conversion of forestland to non-forestland uses. The proposed project would result in no impact on agriculture and forestry resources.
3.2.3 Cumulative According to the evaluation above, the project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources. Therefore, when combined with cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan Addendum, no new cumulative impacts would occur. The proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to agricultural or forestry resources. There would be no additional cumulative impacts.
3.2.4 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan and an associated zone change from MIH to BTP-H for the off-site redesignation parcels. The purpose of the off-site redesignation is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. 6 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: June 3, 2024. 7 California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html. Accessed: June 3, 2024.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-11 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
As discussed in the Specific Plan Addendum and General Plan EIR, which are incorporated by reference, agricultural and forestry resources do not occur within the Specific Plan area; therefore, there would be no impacts on agricultural and forestry resources. Furthermore, no lands within city boundaries are under a Williamson Act contract. The redesignation of five off-site parcels from MIH to BTP-H would not change the above conclusions because the same lands would be disturbed—lands that are not currently used for agricultural or forestry activities. Therefore, there would be no impact on agricultural and forestry resources as a result of the off-site redesignation parcels, and no further evaluation in an EIR is required.
3.3 Air Quality
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment status under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ The proposed project is an R&D project. It does not include any land uses that are known to generate substantial odors, such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing facilities, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, auto body shops, rendering plants, and coffee roasting facilities. During construction, diesel exhaust from construction equipment would generate odors. However, construction-related odors would be temporary and would not persist upon project completion. Operation of the proposed project, which is a typical urban land use, is not anticipated to create significant sources of new odors. Thus, odors would not be expected to occur as a result of operation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to checklist question 3(d). This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. Construction vehicles and equipment used during project construction would generate criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors, including reactive organic gases (ROGs), nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter. Construction of the project would also generate toxic air contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM). During operation of the project, project-generated vehicle trips would generate criteria air pollutant emissions, and emergency generator testing would generate toxic air contaminants (TACs). Therefore, construction and operation of the project would have the potential to result in significant impacts with respect to checklist questions 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c). These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-12 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.4 Biological Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal areas) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3.4.1 Setting Much of the city of South San Francisco is already urbanized, and the amount of vacant land is limited. As stated in the City’s General Plan, the most prevalent land use in South San Francisco is residential (occupying 39.8 percent of the land area), followed by industrial and R&D (29.5 percent); parks, open spaces, and common greens (9.9 percent); and public/institutional (6.6 percent); there are only about 153 acres of vacant land (about 3.4 percent of the city). The project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which extends from Alaska to Patagonia; the Pacific Flyway is one of four major flyways in North American used by migratory birds for their annual migrations. Naturally occurring open space in proximity to the project site includes San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, 3 miles to the north; San Francisco Bay, 1 mile to the east, and Crestmoor Canyon, 3.35 miles to the southwest. In addition, a north–south running strip of fragmented open space belonging to SFO (known as the West of Bayshore Subarea to the Airport Planning Department) is 1.59 miles southeast of the project site.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-13 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The 17.67-acre project site is completely developed with buildings and pavement within a predominantly urbanized area. There is little to no on-site landscaping, and there are no existing trees on the project site.8 The site is bounded by Terminal Court, preceding the Park ‘N Fly parking lot to the north; a pay booth, maintenance garage, and surface parking lot to the east; a navigable slough9 that feeds into San Bruno Canal to the south; and commercial and industrial development to the west. Because the project site is completely developed, it does not contain natural land cover, protected wetlands/waters,10 riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities.11 There are no water features or waterways on the project site. Although the project site is developed, some natural resource features are located nearby. A navigable slough is located immediately south of the site, and Colma Creek, a perennial stream in a concrete-lined channel, is approximately 0.27 mile north of the site. The slough is connected to San Bruno Canal and Colma Creek, which empties into San Francisco Bay approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The biological resources impact analysis is based on a desktop review and evaluation of the following sources:
• A California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)12 species list query for the project site and 1-mile buffer area;
• A California Native Plant Society (CNPS)13 species list query for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) South San Francisco (3712264) 7.5-minute series quadrangle;
• A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)14 query for the project site;
• The arborist memorandum for Terminal 131, July 27, 2022;15
• The City General Plan Draft EIR;16
8 HMH Engineers. 2022. Terminal 131 Certified Tree Inventory. July 27, 2022. 9 The navigable slough is a remnant tidal channel that cuts through a commercial district in the city of South San Francisco. The slough is connected to San Francisco Bay. (ESA. 2019. Navigable Slough Flood Management Study, Prepared for County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and City of San Bruno. Available: https://oneshoreline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Navigable-Slough-Flood-Management-Study.pdf. Accessed: April 12, 2023.) 10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper. Available: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. California Sensitive Natural Communities. June 1. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. California Natural Diversity Database. RareFind Records Search. RareFind Version 5.3.0. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 13 California Native Plant Society. 2023. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. IPaC Species List. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 15 HMH Engineers. 2022. Terminal 131 Certified Tree Inventory. July 27, 2022. 16 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-14 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
• The USFWS National Wetland Inventory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data for the identification of waters and wetlands;17,18 and
• Google Earth for aerial imagery.19
3.4.2 Discussion
3.4.2.1 Impacts on Special-Status Species Because the project site is completely developed and no natural land cover or sensitive natural communities are present on the site, special-status wildlife species are not anticipated to occur on the site, with the exception of resident and migratory nesting birds protected under State law (California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513) and federal law (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and bats protected under State law (California Fish and Game Code Section 4150). Queries of the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC regarding special-status species with potential to occur in the region are included in Appendix J.20 There is no potential habitat for special-status plants or special-status fish within the project site, but there is suitable habitat in the navigable slough south of the project site for four species, although two have low potential to occur. The majority of species listed in the queries have low or no potential to occur on or in immediate proximity to the project site because it is outside the species’ range, lacks habitat for these species, and/or the surrounding dense urban development acts as a barrier between potential habitat and the site. Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), a fish species designated as threatened by CDFW, and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), a fish species designated as threatened by USFWS, have the potential to occur in the navigable slough south of the project site because this aquatic habitat is within the known range for the species. The proposed project would not result in direct impacts on longfin smelt or green sturgeon because no aquatic habitat is located on the project site; however, the potential exists for the proposed project to indirectly affect water quality in the navigable slough. Indirect impacts on aquatic habitats could occur because of impacts on water quality. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, local drainage is managed by storm drain infrastructure. The proposed project would be required to comply with local and State regulations that call for implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality during construction and operation. In addition, an approximately 15-foot buffer would be incorporated between construction work areas in the southern portion of the project site and the top of the bank of the navigable slough. Futhermore, discharges from storm drains to surface waters would be in compliance with waste discharge requirements. Temporary 17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper. Available: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. WATERS GeoViewer. Available: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/ waters-geoviewer. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 19 Google Earth Pro. 2023. Aerial imagery: 131 Terminal Court, 37°38'38.98"N and 122°24’30.84"W. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 20 Peregrine falcon (Falcon peregrinus) is not included in Appendix J because Senate Bill No. 147, Chapter 59, which was approved by the governor and took effect on July 10, 2023, removed this species from the fully protected speices list. Although the species is no longer designated as a fully protected species by CDFW, the species is protected under state and federal laws that protect birds and raptors.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-15 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
dewatering is anticipated during construction; however, no permanent dewatering would be required during operation. Groundwater that fails to meet water quality standards would be treated prior to discharge or hauled off-site for treatment and disposal. Because there would be no direct impacts on longfin smelt or green sturgeon and water quality would be protected with implementation of local and State regulations, the proposed project’s impact on longfin smelt and green sturgeon would be less than significant. California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) are species designated as endangered by USFWS and endangered and fully protected by CDFW. Althought suitable habitat for California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse is present in the navigable slough located south of the project site, the habitat is considered marginal; these species are considered to have low potential to occur for a combination of factors, including the small amount of suitable habitat in the slough, the slough being surrounded by development with high human disturbance, the distance to high-quality habitat, the fragmentation of the slough, the lack of CNDDB occurrences, and the presence of a feral cat colony in the area. On February 27, 2024, an ICF senior wildlife biologist conducted a site visit to document land cover and assess habitat for special-status species related to the navigable slough. During the survey, the biologist was able to observe the slough from the southern boundary of the project site and from the existing road located at the slough’s western boundary. It was observed that the habitat in the navigable slough is salt marsh; the dominate vegetation in the slough channel is pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica) with scattered gumplants (Grindelia sp.). Non-native species dominate the upland slough banks, including a mix of pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), french broom (Genista monspessulana), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), mallow (Malva sp.), and non-native grasses; the south bank has non-native trees, including ngaio tree (Myoporum laetum). The marsh and unvegetated channel between the north and south high-water marks in the section of slough south of the project site is approximatly 60 feet at its widest; there is no more than 45 feet of upland on the north side of the slough and 25 feet on the south side of the slough. The slough is surrounded by dense urban uses on all sides. Higher-quality habitat for species is approximately 0.87 mile (4,576 feet) east of where Colma Creek empties into San Francisco Bay;21 between the project site and the bay, the slough is partially framented by double concrete culverts and a single concrete culvert under U.S. 101 and South Airport Boulveard, respectively. No CNDDB occurrences for California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse are recorded at or near the project site. There is only one CNDDB occurrence for California Ridgway’s rail within 1 mile of the project; occurrence #44, approximately 1 mile (radius) in size, is associated with marshes along the open bay 0.8 mile east of the project site where suitable higher-quality habitat is present for this species. There are no CNDDB occurrences for salt marsh harvest mouse within 10 miles of the project; the nearest occurrence (#57) is more than 10 miles southeast of the project site where suitable higher-quality habitat is present for this species. In addition to these factors that reduce the potential for these species to occur in the slough, an active Purrfect Catch Foundation feral cat feeding station is just outside the southeast corner of the project site near the slough; multiple bowls with food and water were present during the site visit. Feral cats are predators of California Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and cat food left at feeding stations can attract additional predators, including rats, skunks, raccoons, and opossums. 21 Google Earth Pro. 2023. Aerial imagery: 131 Terminal Court, 37°38'38.98"N and 122°24’30.84"W. Accessed: October 13, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-16 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Because the navigable slough is salt marsh habitat, freshwater species, including San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), have no potential to occur on the project site or in the navigable slough. Individual and population habitat needs for San Francisco garter include amphibian prey (e.g., red-legged frogs, treefrogs, other tertiary prey items), freshwater habitat with dense aquatic vegetation, upland habitat, and hibernacula.22 In the navigable slough south of the project site, there is no freshwater habitat and limited upland habitat and hibernacula. Although three extant CNDDB occurrences (# 9, #13, and #55) overlap the project site and the navigable slough, the occurrences are not specific, approximately 7.5 miles by 17 miles in size. Information in CNDDB regarding occurrence #9 describes the location to be more than 4 miles southwest of the project site where suitable habitat for this species is present. Information in CNDDB regarding occurrence #13 and #55 did not provide further location details but described the presence of suitable habitat at each occurrence location. Freshwater marsh and ponds with adjacent grassland scrub, grassland fields, and trees are detailed in CNDDB related to occurrence #13, and a freshwater pond with scrub and trees is detailed in CNDDB related to occurrence #55. Because these habitat features are not present in the navigable slough south of the project area, it is deduced that occurrences #13 and #15 are not associated with the slough. There is little to no on-site landscaping, and there are no existing trees on the project site.23 However, the existing on-site structures, as well as landscaping (e.g., trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses) near the project site, could provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors, which, as described above, are protected under State and federal law. The proposed project would remove all on-site structures. If nests are present on-site or in the surrounding area and eggs, nestlings, or nesting individuals are harmed or killed during structure removal or substantially affected by construction noise or nighttime lighting during operation, a significant impact could occur. Trees and structures within or near the project site could also provide suitable roosting habitat for bats, which are protected under State law, although limited foraging habitat surrounds the project site. If bats are present in existing structures within the project site and structure removal results in disturbance, direct mortality, or roost site abandonment, as well as reduced reproductive success, a significant impact could occur. In accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Special-Status Species, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds, from the General Plan EIR, the project would be required to retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats. If nesting birds or roosting bats are identified on the project site or in an area that could be disturbed during project construction, measures would be identified to avoid or minimize impacts on the individuals. With implementation of this measure, which would be enforced through project conditions of approval, impacts on nesting birds and roosting bats would be less than significant with mitigation.
3.4.2.2 Impacts on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present on the project site. The limited landscaping on the project site is not considered part of a sensitive natural community. The closest areas with potential for sensitive natural communities are the wetland habitats associated with the navigable slough, approximately 25 feet south of the project site. 22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Species Status Assessment for the San Francisco Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). Version 1.0, May, Sacramento, CA. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/ 171618. Accessed: February 27, 2024. 23 HMH Engineers. 2022. Terminal 131 Certified Tree Inventory. July 27, 2022.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-17 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive natural communities; however, indirect impacts on potential sensitive natural communities could occur because of impacts on water quality. As described in Section 3.4.2.1, above, and Section 3.10.1, below, there would be no direct impacts on sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat because water quality would be protected through compliance with local and State regulations. In addition, an approximately 15-foot buffer would be incorporated between construction work areas in the southern portion of the project site and the top of the bank of the navigable slough. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
3.4.2.3 Impacts on State or Federally Protected Wetlands No federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters are present on the project site. The nearest jurisdictional waters to the project site are Colma Creek and the navigable slough, which are north and south of the project site, respectively. Colma Creek is a perennial stream that empties into San Francisco Bay, with headwaters in San Bruno Mountain State Park. Colma Creek is approximately 0.27 mile north of the project site, and the portion of the creek closest to the project site is contained within a concrete channel. The navigable slough south of the project site is an estuarine wetland approximately 25 feet south of the project site. The navigable slough passes through a culvert under the Bayshore Freeway and then empties into San Bruno Canal before joining Colma Creek, approximately 0.3 mile downstream from San Bruno Canal. The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts on Colma Creek or the navigable slough. Nonetheless, the potential exists for the proposed project to indirectly affect water quality. However, as described in Section 3.4.2.1, above, and Section 3.10.1, below, because there would be no direct impacts on jurisdictional waters or wetlands, and because water quality would be protected through compliance with local and State regulations, the proposed project’s impact on potentially protected wetlands would be less than significant.
3.4.2.4 Impacts on Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites No wetlands or running waters are present on the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not affect fish movement. All project activities would occur within an already-developed footprint. Any common urban-adapted species that currently move through the project site would continue to be able to do so following construction. Should non-nesting birds be on the project site when disturbance occurs, they could readily vacate the site and relocate to other areas. Wildlife corridors are described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space that would otherwise be separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, or other natural or man-made obstacles, such as those associated with urbanization. The project site does not occur between areas of natural open space; the nearest open space is more than 2,800 feet southeast of the project site. Nonetheless, the project site is within the Pacific Flyway, a bird migratory route, and the likelihood exists for trees on the project site to be used by migratory birds. In addition, the likelihood exists for structures on the project site to be used by birds and bats as nursery sites. Should the proposed project interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, a significant impact could occur. In addition, a north–south running strip of fragmented open space belonging to SFO (known as the West of Bayshore Subarea to the Airport Planning Department) is 0.8 mile southeast of the project site.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-18 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
As described above, impacts on nesting migratory birds and bats would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 from the General Plan EIR, and compliance with existing lighting regulations. Operation of the proposed project would include the use of new lighting and structures with potentially reflective surfaces. The new lighting and the new surfaces on the building could misdirect or confuse migratory birds or bats, resulting in disruption with respect to natural behavioral patterns and possible injury or death from exhaustion or collisions with buildings. The potential for these types of impacts could be heightened because of the proposed project’s location within the Pacific Flyway and proximity to San Francisco Bay. Impacts on migratory birds and bats from proposed buildings and increased lighting levels could be significant. However, impacts would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require surveys for special-status species and be enforced through project conditions of approval. In addition, City Zoning Ordinance Section 20.300.008 includes lighting and illumination regulations that minimize artificial sky brightness, glare, and potential disruptions to nocturnal ecosystems. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and compliance with existing lighting regulations, impacts on migratory birds due to operation of the proposed project would be
less than significant with mitigation.
3.4.2.5 Conflicts with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological
Resources City Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 1271-2000, City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, defines a “protected tree” as:
• Any tree of the following species with a circumference of 75 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade: blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), Myoporum (Myoporum laetum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), glossy privet (Lingustrum
lucidum), and Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra);
• Any heritage tree of the following species with a circumference of 30 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade: California bay (Umbellaria californica), oak (Quercus spp.), cedar (Cedrus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus var. asplenifolius), strawberry tree (Arbutus spp.), Mayten (Maytenus
boaria), and little gem dwarf southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora);
• Any tree, other than the species listed above with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade;
• A tree, or stand of trees, with a designation based on a finding that it is unique and of importance to the public because of its unusual appearance, location, or historical significance; or
• A stand of trees where each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. According to the arborist memorandum (Appendix K),24 no trees are documented on the project site; therefore, no protected trees would be removed. There would be no impact with respect to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
24 HMH Engineers. 2022. Terminal 131 Certified Tree Inventory Memorandum. July 27, 2022.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-19 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Since certification of the General Plan EIR, the City adopted a bird-safe design ordinance, City Municipal Code Chapter 20.310.002, in accordance with Action ES-2.2.1 of the General Plan, which calls for the City to develop a bird safe design ordinance to minimize the adverse effects on native and migratory birds and require new development east of U.S. 101 to incorporate design measures. The ordinance includes bird-safe glazing requirements that pertain to the first 60 feet of a building’s height for buildings within 300 feet of an Urban Bird Refuge (UBR) as well as buildings with uninterrupted glass segments 24 square feet or larger. The City has not identified any UBRs within city limits, and the City Municipal Code does not contain any guidelines or criteria for defining a UBR. However, based on guidelines from other nearby jurisdictions, such as the City of San Francisco, a UBR is typically defined as an open space that is 2 acres or larger and dominated by vegetation, vegetated landscaping, forests, meadows, grassland, wetlands, or open water. Using this definition, the navigable slough south of the project site could be considered a UBR. The slough is approximately 3.32 acres, including the channel, bank, and related upland area, from its western boundary southwest of the project site to U.S. 101/Bayshore Freeway southeast of the project site. The I131N A, I131N B, day-care center, and I131S A buildings, as well as the I131N parking garage, would not be subject to the City bird-safe design ordinance because they would be more than 300 feet from the UBR. The amenity building’s south-facing façade would be approximately 300 feet from the UBR but would be mostly obstructed from the UBR by the I131S B and I131S C buildings, in addition to the planned landscaping between I131S B and I131S C buildings and south of the amenity building. Therefore bird-safe design requirements would not be necessary for the amenity building because there would be no direct line of sight between the UBR and this building. Additional buildings within 300 feet of the UBR include the I131S B and I131S C buildings. The proposed project would incorporate ultra-violet hatched/fritted glazing for up to 60 feet of the height of the I131S B and I131S C buildings. Specifically, glazing would be incorporated on the south- and east-facing façades of the I131S B building and the south-, east-, and west-facing façades of the I131S C building within direct line of sight of the UBR, in accordance with similar bird-safe design requirements from other nearby jurisdictions (see Appendix L, Bird-Safe Design Strategy). Because there would be no direct line of sight between the UBR and the north- and northeast-facing façades of the I131S B building or the north façade of the I131S C building, bird-safe design requirements would not be necessary on these façades. Because there are no trees on the site and the project would comply with the City-adopted bird-safe design ordinance, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
3.4.2.6 Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan The project site is not part of, or near, an area covered by an adopted or proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP) or any other local, regional, or State HCP. The nearest area covered by an HCP is San Bruno Mountain, which is approximately 4 miles north of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP, and no
impact would occur.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-20 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts As stated above, the proposed project would result in no impact, a less-than-significant impact, or a less-than-significant impact with mitigation. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with other nearby cumulative development. In particular, the Infinite 101 Project, which would be immediately adjacent to the project site to the east, could result in cumulative changes to biological resources. The adjacent project would demolish a small vehicle maintenance garage, pay booth, and surface parking and construct approximately 700,000 square feet of life sciences and R&D and amenity space within two six-story buildings. As an R&D use, the Infinite 101 Project would most likely have biological resource impacts similar to those of the proposed project. Similar to the site for the proposed project, the Infinite 101 project site contains development with limited landscaping; therefore, habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species is marginal. In addition, similar to the proposed project, buildings and lighting on the Infinite 101 project site may cause bird strikes. Therefore, as with the proposed project, the Infinite 101 Project could have an impact on nesting special-status and migratory bird species. However, the Infinite 101 Project would also be subject to the requirements of wildlife protection laws, including the California Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the California Fish and Game Code, as well as wildlife protection policies and provisions and the mitigation measures identified in the General Plan and City Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.4.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan and an associated zone change from MIH to BTP-H for the off-site redesignation parcels. The purpose of the off-site redesignation is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. The setting and land cover (i.e., developed with buildings and pavement) at the off-site redesignation parcels are similar to the setting and land cover on the project site, except that there is ornamental vegetation on-site, including trees. Similar to the project site, a waterway is located just south of the off-site redesignation parcels, and Colma Creek is located to the north. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, and no federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters, are present within the off-site redesignation parcels; therefore, future development in the off-site redesignation parcels would have no impact. The off-site redesignation parcels are not part of, or near, an area covered by an adopted or proposed HCP or NCCP or any other local, regional, or State HCP. Therefore, future development in the off-site redesignation
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-21 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
parcels would have no impact. No wetlands or running waters are present on the off-site redesignation parcels; therefore, future development in the off-site redesignation parcels would have no impact on fish movement. If future development in the off-site redesignation parcels would require tree removal, compliance with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance (No. 1271-2000) would be required. In addition, future development on the parcels would also be required to comply with the City’s bird-safe design ordinance, City Municipal Code Chapter 20.310.002; therefore, impacts related to local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources would be less than significant. Similar to the project, future development under the BTP-H zoning designation within the off-site redesignation parcels could affect special-status species, as well as the movement of wildlife, and impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts on special-status species would be less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 from the General Plan EIR, or other types of similar measures enforced through conditions of approval, and compliance with the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Impacts on wildlife movement and native wildlife nursery sites would also be less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and compliance with existing lighting regulations, as described in City Zoning Ordinance Section 20.300.008. Therefore, through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and compliance with the City Tree Preservation Ordinance, the City’s bird-safe design ordinance, the California Building Standards Code, and existing lighting regulations (City Zoning Ordinance Section 20.300.008), which would be enforced through project conditions of approval, impacts associated with the off-site redesignation would be less than significant. No further evaluation in an EIR is required.
3.5 Cultural Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological materials, which applies to “any evidence of human activity.” Public Resources Code Section 5097 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow when Native American human remains are inadvertently discovered during excavation and construction. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code sets forth provisions related to the treatment of human remains, including the treatment of human remains found in locations other than a dedicated cemetery, and the responsibilities of the coroner. These requirements apply to all construction projects within the city, which includes the
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-22 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
proposed project. Furthermore, the General Plan includes policies and actions to reduce impacts on archaeological resources, including human remains. Policy ES-11.1, Identification of Tribal Cultural Resources, requires the City to identify, preserve, and protect tribal cultural resources, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites, in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s). Policy ES-11.1 further requires appropriate treatment of Native American and other human remains discovered during project construction. Implementation of policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as compliance with adopted State, federal, and local regulations for the protection of archaeological resources and human remains, would ensure that future development under the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on human remains. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur with respect to checklist question 5(c). This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. Construction of the proposed project would include demolition of the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, a produce market previously determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with the development of the South San Francisco Industrial Park and the produce industry in the San Francisco Bay Area.25 As such, the produce terminal qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in CEQA Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3). Therefore, construction of the project would have the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to checklist question 5(a). Impacts on the Golden Gate Produce Terminal will be evaluated in a focused EIR. In addition, one previously identified archaeological resource, P-41-000051, was identified on the project site. There is the potential for archaeological resources, including P-41-000051, to be encountered during project construction. If archaeological resources are encountered during project-related ground disturbance, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource could occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration, and the significance of the resource could be materially impaired, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1). Therefore, construction of the project would have the potential to result in significant impact with respect to checklist question 5(b). Impacts on archaeological resources will be analyzed in the EIR.
25 AECOM. 2022. Finding of No Adverse Effect, US 101/Produce Avenue Overcrossing Project, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. May 13; California Department of Transportation. 2023. Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact. Prepared for the US Highway 101/Produce Avenue Interchange Project. February; National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-23 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.6 Energy
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
6. ENERGY:
Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environment impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.6.1 Setting
Electricity Grid electricity and natural gas service in South San Francisco are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E is a publicly traded utility company that, under contract with the California Public Utilities Commission, generates, purchases, and distributes energy. PG&E’s service territory covers 70,000 square miles, roughly extending north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield and east to west from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean. PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines.26 PG&E electricity is generated from a combination of sources, such as coal-fired power plants, nuclear plants, and hydroelectric dams, along with newer sources such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, or “solar farms.” “The grid,” or bulk electric grid, is a network of high-voltage transmission lines that link power plants to the PG&E system. The distribution system, comprising lower-voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level. It consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that connect to individual customers. The existing electrical system in the project area consists of overhead and underground facilities. In addition to its base plan, PG&E has two options, known as Solar Choice and Regional Renewable Choice options, that give customers the option of purchasing power from solar or other renewable resources. One Solar Choice option provides up to 50 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources; the other option provides up to 100 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources. The Regional Renewable Choice option allows customers to purchase renewable energy from a specific project within PG&E’s service area for anywhere from 25 to 100 percent of their energy use.27 In addition, in 2016, South San Francisco joined Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) to receive additional renewable power. PCE’s power comes from a mix of various sources, including solar, wind, 26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2023. Company Profile. Available: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page. Accessed: November 5, 2023. 27 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2023. Which Renewable Option Is Best for You? Available: https://www.pge.com/en_US/small-medium-business/energy-alternatives/private-solar/solar-choice-rates/solar-choice-plans-for-businesses.page. Accessed: November 6, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-24 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
geothermal, biomass and biowaste, and hydroelectric generation resources. PCE delivers power to its customers from existing PG&E utility infrastructure. PCE allows customers to choose between two different electricity options, ECOplus, with 50 percent of a customer’s electricity from renewable resources and 100 percent clean energy resources, and ECO100, with 100 percent from renewable and carbon-free resources.28 In 2022, San Mateo County consumed a total of 4,177 million kilowatts of electricity. In the county, electricity was consumed primarily by the non-residential sector (62 percent), followed by the residential sector (38 percent).29
Natural Gas PG&E’s natural gas (i.e., methane) delivery system includes 42,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,700 miles of transmission pipelines.30 The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program in real time on a 24-hour basis, with leak inspections, surveys, and patrols continuously taking place along the pipelines. Gas delivered by PG&E originates in gas fields in California, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada.31 Transmission pipelines send natural gas from the fields and storage facilities; these large pipes are under high pressure. The smaller distribution pipelines deliver gas to individual businesses or residences. In San Mateo County, a total of 204 million therms of natural gas were consumed in 2022 (the most recent year for which data are available). In 2022, natural gas in the county was consumed primarily by the residential sector (56 percent), followed by the non-residential sector (44 percent).32
Project Site As stated previously, PG&E provides natural gas and electricity to South San Francisco, including the project site, through its right-of-way for electric and natural gas lines. The project site is served by both natural gas and electric infrastructure provided by PG&E.
3.6.2 Discussion
3.6.2.1 Result in the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption
of Energy Resources
Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in temporary use and consumption of energy resources on the project site. Construction energy would include the electricity used to power electric construction equipment and deliver water to the construction site, 28 Peninsula Clean Energy. 2023. Energy Choices. Available: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/energy-choices/. Accessed: November 6, 2023. 29 California Energy Commission. n.d. Electricity Consumption by County—San Mateo County. Available: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed: November 5, 2023. 30 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2023. Learn About the PG&E Natural Gas System. Available: https://www.pge.com/en_US/ safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/natural-gas-system-overview.page. Accessed: November 5, 2023. 31 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2023. Discover Core Gas Supply. Available: https://www.pge.com/en_US/for-our-business-partners/energy-supply/core-gas-supply/core-gas-supply.page?ctx=business. Accessed: November 5, 2023. 32 California Energy Commission. n.d. Gas Consumption By County—San Mateo County. Available: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed: November 5, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-25 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
along with the gasoline and diesel fuel used to transport workers and drive haul trucks to and from construction sites or operate off-road equipment. It is estimated that construction of the proposed project would use approximately 14,352 megawatt hours of electricity, 294,367 gallons of gasoline, and 461,884 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction period. No natural gas would be used during project construction. Construction energy consumption would cease once construction of the proposed project is complete; therefore, such consumption is considered short term. In addition, in accordance with Chapter 15.60 of the City Municipal Code, 100 percent of all inert solids (i.e., building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (i.e., all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City during project construction and demolition, which would result in energy reductions. Construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact would be less than significant.
Operation Energy would also be required to heat and cool the proposed buildings, provide indoor and outdoor lighting, and move water/wastewater. The proposed project would consume energy during normal day-to-day operations associated with the proposed R&D uses, including the use of personal and mass transit vehicles by employees and visitors/guests when traveling to and from the project site, which would require energy in the form of gasoline, diesel, and/or electricity. It is estimated that operation of the proposed buildings would use approximately 58,870,875 kilowatt hours of electricity and 661,508 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Vehicle trips during project operations would require approximately 1,266,966 gallons of gasoline, 141,281 gallons of diesel, 7,214 gallons of natural gas, and 13,862 gallons of fuel for plug-in hybrids. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project would incorporate sustainability features to reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. The proposed project would achieve, at a minimum, a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), version 4.1, Building Design and Construction (BD+C) Core and Shell Gold rating as well as WELL v2 Core Gold certification.33 Proposed sustainability measures would include an all-electric building design; the use of on-site renewable energy from rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels, which would generate approximately 1,766,130 kilowatt hours of electricity per year; a high-performance building envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system; ultra-efficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures; low-water-demand native and/or adapted vegetation with efficient irrigation systems; on-site recycling and composting facilities; and electric-vehicle charging infrastructure. In addition, the proposed project would implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures to reduce the number of trips generated to and from the project site (see Appendix I), which would reduce the consumption of energy resources such as vehicle fuel. As such, the use of energy resources during project operation would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Because of the proposed project’s size and location within an urban setting, build-out of the proposed project would not significantly increase energy demand within the service territory and would not require new energy facilities. The proposed project would be required by law to adhere to California Code of Regulations Title 24, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), 33 The WELL building standards are performance-based building standards for measuring and monitoring features within the built environment that may affect human health through air, water, light, and other concepts. The standards provide ways for buildings to be designed to improve human comfort and enhance health and wellness within the built environment.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-26 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
as well as adopted City energy conservation ordinances and regulations. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to implement relevant policies from the City’s Climate Action Plan, which are geared toward reducing operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This would indirectly reduce energy consumption (see the discussion in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Accordingly, with implementation of adopted State and City energy conservation measures, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
3.6.2.2 Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable
Energy or Energy Efficiency As discussed above, the proposed project would encourage implementation of sustainability and transportation features and be required to comply with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and the impact would be less than
significant.
3.6.2.3 Cumulative Impacts Continued growth throughout PG&E’s service area could contribute to ongoing increases in demand for electricity and natural gas. These anticipated increases would be countered, in part, as State and local requirements related to renewable energy become more stringent and energy efficiency increases. Therefore, it is anticipated that future energy users will become more efficient and less wasteful over time. In addition, similar to the proposed project, cumulative development projects would most likely include sustainability and transportation features that would reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy generation. Furthermore, with adherence to the General Plan and Climate Action Plan policies and actions, the City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, and standards of each applicable jurisdiction within the PG&E service area, as well as State, regional, and local policies to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with development from cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to energy. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.6.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan and an associated zone change from MIH to BTP-H for the off-site redesignation parcels. The purpose of the off-site redesignation is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-27 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Similar to the proposed project, future development under the BTP-H designation could include life sciences and R&D office space, which would most likely have energy impacts similar to those of the project. Similar to the proposed project, future development at the off-site redesignation parcels would most likely include features that would reduce energy consumption and increase renewable energy generation and be required to comply with all adopted State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency regulations and plans. Future development at the off-site redesignation parcels would not result in a significant impact related to energy. Therefore, energy impacts associated with the off-site redesignation parcels would be less than significant. No further evaluation in an EIR is required.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-28 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.7 Geology and Soils
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii. Seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils that would be incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.7.1 Setting The project site is located in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, a portion of coastal California characterized by northwest-trending mountain ridges and a valley running parallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone. Typically, bedrock within the province consists of Tertiary marine sedimentary deposits and volcanic rock. Bedrock beneath the project site ranges from at least 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the northern edge of the project site to at least 250 bgs at the southern edge where contact with the Colma Formation has been mapped. The site is underlain by Quaternary surficial deposits of artificial fill over a tidal flat.34 The presence of 34 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 3.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-29 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
liquefiable soils is generally higher in the eastern part of the city. The California Geological Survey has mapped the site as within a Seismic Hazard Zone with potential for liquefaction.35 Although not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, the project site is located in a seismically active region of California. Active faults, including the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward-Rodgers faults, are located within 3 miles of the site.
3.7.2 Discussion A preliminary geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed project by Haley & Aldrich to analyze potential project impacts. The following discussion is based on the Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, which is included as Appendix M.
3.7.2.1 Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault The major active faults closest to the project site are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward-Rodgers faults, the latter being the closest, at less than 3 miles from the project site. The proposed project is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site.36 Therefore, the risk of surface faulting and secondary ground failure is low. In addition, the proposed project would adhere to local codes, General Plan policies, and Specific Plan polices regarding earthquakes. Therefore, this impact is considered
less than significant.
3.7.2.2 Strong Seismic Ground Shaking The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities at the USGS, in coordination with the California Geological Survey and Southern California Earthquake Center, predicted a 72 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area in 30 years (i.e., before 2044). The project site is located in a seismically active region of the state. The area has been designated as Zone VIII, which corresponds to “very strong” ground shaking.37 Therefore, the project site could experience very strong seismic shaking during a major earthquake.38 The proposed project would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements and City Municipal Code requirements, including design specifications for building foundations and structures that would enable them to withstand strong seismic ground shaking. With adherence to the California Building Code and City Municipal Code requirements, project-related impacts would be less than significant.
35 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South
San Francisco, California, p. 5. 36 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 3. 37 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064. Exhibit 3.6-2, Ground Shaking. 38 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 4.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-30 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.7.2.3 Seismically Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction is generally higher in the eastern part of the city. The project site would be located within a Liquefaction Zone,39 and the potential for on-site liquefaction to occur across the site, within the upper 50 feet bgs, is considered moderate to high. This is due to the presence of silty sand and sandy silt, which were identified between approximately 18 and 80 feet bgs, especially from 18 to 30 feet bgs where the medium-dense to dense silty sand resides.40 The preliminary geotechnical investigation recommended supporting the proposed project on deep foundations (e.g., Tubex and auger-cast piles), extending to at least 45 to 60 feet bgs. Compliance with the recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical investigation would be enforced as a condition of approval for the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement Action CR-4.41 of the General Plan, which requires future projects to prepare site-specific geotechnical reports and implement their recommendations. Compliance with geotechnical report recommendations, as well as City Municipal Code policies, would reduce impacts related to liquefaction to a less-than-significant level.
Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading occurs when extensive ground cracking and settlement move toward a free face such as a slope or creek channel. It is commonly associated with liquefiable soils. Areas at risk of lateral spreading in South San Francisco are primarily those along streams and waterfronts.41 The proposed project would be located near a free face (San Bruno Canal) at the southern edge of the project site. The preliminary geotechnical investigation estimated that lateral spreading could be in the range of 30 to 130 inches and recommended that detailed analysis be presented during the design-level phase of the proposed project.42 Per the City Zoning Ordinance, this analysis would be reviewed and approved by the City engineer, and the proposed project would comply with any necessary recommendations. Therefore, through compliance with the recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation, which would be a condition of approval and implement Action CR-4.41 of the General Plan, as well as the City Zoning Ordinance, impacts related to lateral spreading would be
less than significant.
3.7.2.4 Landslides Landslides occur when the stability of a slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. The stability of a slope is affected by the following factors: inclination, material type, moisture content, orientation of layering, and vegetative cover. In general, steeper slopes are less stable than more gently inclined ones. 39 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064. Exhibit 3.6-5, Liquefaction Potential. 40 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 5. 41 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064. p. 3.6-22. 42 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 7.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-31 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The Project Site is located in an area designated as having moderate incidence of landslide susceptibility.43 However, the topography of the project site is relatively flat,44 and the preliminary geotechnical investigation did not identify landslides as a geotechnical issue that would affect design and construction. Therefore, through adherence to applicable City Municipal Code and City Zoning Ordinance sections, as well as General Plan policies and actions, impacts related to landslide risks would be less than significant.
3.7.2.5 Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Projects that expose surface soils create the potential for erosion from wind and stormwater runoff. The potential for erosion increases if a project is located on a steep or windy site or if construction occurs during the rainy season. The proposed project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil on the 17.67-acre site and therefore must comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (Construction General Permit), which would require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include BMPs to control erosion and sediments during construction. In addition, the proposed project would abide by Chapter 15.08 of the City Municipal Code, which includes drainage and erosion control requirements, and Section 14.04.132, which requires measures that call for minimizing land disturbance and impervious surfaces.45 Therefore, through adherence to permit requirements and City Municipal Code sections, impacts related to erosion and a loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
3.7.2.6 Result in On- or Off-site Landslide, Lateral Spreading,
Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse The potential for on-site liquefaction at the project site is considered moderate to high.46 The proposed project’s preliminary geotechnical investigation determined that the potential for cyclic densification at the project site is low.47 In addition, the preliminary geotechnical investigation determined that the site is underlain by soft Young Bay Mud, which is highly compressible. New fill and a building pad could result in up to 5.5 inches of settlement.48 Recommendations for deep foundations, as well as Tubex piles and auger-cast piles, are provided in the preliminary geotechnical investigation to minimize impacts related to settlement, along with landslides, lateral spreading, and liquefaction. In addition, site-specific soil and geologic reports, 43 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064. Exhibit 3.6-2, Landslide Potential. 44 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco. April 2022. 45 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code
Amendments and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064. p. 3.6-23. 46 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 5. 47 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. P Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 7. 48 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 9.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-32 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
which would be reviewed by the City engineer, would be required by California Building Code and City Municipal Code sections for projects in areas that are susceptible to instability. Preparation of the design-specific geotechnical report would be a condition of approval for the proposed project, and implementation of its recommendations would be required by Action CR-4.41 of the General Plan. Therefore, through adherence to permit requirements and City Municipal Code sections, as well as the recommendations provided in the preliminary geotechnical investigation impacts related to locating the proposed project on an unstable geologic unit or soil would be less than significant.
3.7.2.7 Expansive Soil Projects in areas with expansive soils may require special building foundations or grade preparation, such as the removal of problematic soils and replacement with engineered soils. Expansive soils are generally located in the central portion of the city, not in the eastern portion, which is primarily artificial fill. The proposed project’s preliminary geotechnical investigation determined that near-surface native soils consisted of clayey gravel, silty sand, lean clay, and clayey sand with or without gravel, all of which have very low to low expansive potential.49 Because expansivity would be low and the proposed project would adhere to City Municipal Code, City Zoning Ordinance, and California Building Code rules and regulations, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than
significant.
3.7.2.8 Soils that Would Be Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use
of Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems The proposed project would connect to the City’s sanitary sewer system. Proposed sewer system improvements would include a new 18-inch sanitary sewer main through the southwest corner of the project site that would connect to a 21-inch main on Shaw Road to support the proposed project. Proposed on-site sewer pipes would be between 4 and 18 inches in diameter and connect to the upsized sewer main beneath the navigable slough. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be necessary. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact related to soils that would be incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
3.7.2.9 Paleontological Resources or Unique Geological Features The Merced Formation and the Colma Formation, which underlie portions of the city, are known to be potentially fossiliferous. The preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project by Haley & Aldrich determined that the project site is underlain by the Colma Formation, between 45 and 65 feet bgs.50 The preliminary geotechnical investigation recommended extending deep foundations and piles into the Colma Formation. The proposed project would be subject to a project condition of approval that implements General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure GEO-6. 49 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 7. 50 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California, p. 12.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-33 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
In accordance with Mitigation Measure GEO-6 from the General Plan EIR, the project would be required to perform or provide paleontological monitoring for all proposed excavations in the Colma Formation and Merced Formation. Should significant paleontological resources (e.g., bones, teeth, well-preserved plant elements) be unearthed, project activities shall be diverted at least 15 feet from the discovered paleontological resources until a professional vertebrate paleontologist has assessed such discovered resources. With implementation of this measure, which would be enforced through project conditions of approval, impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
3.7.2.10 Cumulative Impacts In general, a project’s potential impacts related to geology and soils are individual and localized, depending on the project site and underlying soils. Each structure will have different levels of excavation, cut-and-fill work, and grading, which would affect local geologic conditions in different ways. Therefore, the geographic context for geology and soils is site specific. The cumulative projects would be required to go through environmental and regulatory review and comply with the California Building Code. Each project would also be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation performed, which would provide design recommendations to reduce each project’s impacts. Similar seismic safety standards and conditions of approval would apply to the reasonably foreseeable future projects. For these reasons, the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative geology and soils impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
3.7.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. Although the off-site redesignation parcels are not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, major active faults are close to the project site, including the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward-Rodgers faults, the latter being within 3 miles of the parcels. The parcels are located in an area designated as Zone VIII, which corresponds to “very strong” ground shaking; therefore, future development on the parcels would be subject to very strong ground shaking during a seismic event. The parcels are also located within a Liquefaction Zone, and the potential exists for on-site liquefaction to affect future development on the parcels. The potential for lateral spreading exists at the five off-site redesignation parcels because free faces, such as Colma Creek, are located nearby. Landslide susceptibility is expected to be low at the parcels and would most likely not affect future development. Impacts related to erosion, the placement of structures on unstable soils or geologic
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-34 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
units, or paleontological resources would be analyzed within the context of a specific geological report and environmental review prepared for any future project. Such issues are not known at this time. However, policies and requirements included in the General Plan Update, City Municipal Code, and City Zoning Ordinance, as well as the California Building Code, would apply to any future development on the five off-site redesignation parcels, which could minimize impacts related to geology and soils. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils associated with the off-site redesignation would be less than significant. No further evaluation in an EIR is required.
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Construction vehicles and equipment used during project construction would generate GHGs, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). During operation, project-generated vehicle trips and emergency generator testing would also generate GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. In addition, the use of electricity, landscaping equipment, and water on the site and the generation of solid waste and wastewater would also generate GHG emissions during operations. Furthermore, the generation of GHG emissions could result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would have the potential to result in significant impacts with respect to checklist questions 3.8(a) and 3.8(b). These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-35 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3.9.1 Setting Site-specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) were conducted for the project site in April and May 2022 by Haley & Aldrich; the ESAs are included in Appendix N.51 The following sections summarize each report’s findings.
51 Haley Aldrich, Inc. 2022. ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California. Final. 0204962-001. Walnut Creek, CA. Prepared for US Terminal Court Owner, LLC Greenwood Village, Colorado; Haley Aldrich. 2022. Phase II Environmental Investigation Results, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California. Final. 0204962-000. Walnut Creek, CA. Prepared for US Terminal Court Owner, LLC Greenwood Village, Colorado.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-36 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.9.1.1 Phase I ESA The objective of the Phase I ESA was to assess whether recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical RECs (HRECs), and controlled RECs (CRECs) were identified and associated with the project site. No RECs or HRECs were noted; however, one CREC was identified. The CREC was associated with a former fueling facility that had been located in the northern portion of the property. When in operation, the former commercial fueling facility consisted of two dispenser islands and three underground storage tanks, or USTs (one 6,000-gallon diesel tanks and two 10,000-gallon gasoline tanks). In 2014, San Mateo County Environmental Health (SMCEH) issued a case closure letter for the site; however, hydrocarbon-affected soil and groundwater were allowed to remain on-site. The affected media was in the vicinity of the former fueling facility and allowed to remain under the Low-Threat UST Case Closure Policy.52 The Phase I ESA noted that future redevelopment, a change in land use, or the removal of soil and/or groundwater from the site would require notification of SMCEH. In addition, one “potential environmental concern” was identified in connection with the site. According to the Phase I ESA, an easement for an active, non-highly volatile liquid (HVL) pipeline is located along the east side of the site. No documented releases were identified associated with this feature, however, the Phase I ESA determined that there is potential for future releases.
3.9.1.2 Phase II ESA The Phase II ESA investigation consisted of advancing five borings at specific locations within the site and collecting soil and/or groundwater samples. The assessment’s intent was to determine whether the soils to be encountered during future construction activities would require special on-site handling and off-site disposal, whether groundwater generated from construction dewatering would require special treatment prior to discharge or disposal, and whether the remaining soil and groundwater concentrations would pose a vapor intrusion risk. The Phase II ESA findings were the following related to soil and groundwater:
Soil
• Total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel range organics (TPH-DROs) and TPH-gasoline range organics (TPH-GROs) were detected at concentrations greater than laboratory reporting limits but below their respective commercial/industrial environmental screening levels, or ESLs (in two soil borings, noted in the report as HA-12 and HA-13).
• Select volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected at concentrations greater than laboratory reporting limits but below commercial/industrial ESLs. These constituents were detected in shallow soil samples collected from boring location HA-12.
• Arsenic was detected at concentrations exceeding the commercial/industrial ESL of 0.31 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). However, all but three of the detected concentrations were below the background arsenic concentration accepted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for San Francisco Bay Area soil. 52 The policy applies to petroleum UST sites subject to Chapter 6.7 of the Health and Safety Code. The policy establishes both general and media-specific criteria. If both the general and applicable media-specific criteria are satisfied, then the leaking UST case is generally considered to present a low threat to human health, safety, and the environment and considered appropriate for closure pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25296.10.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-37 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
• Total chromium was detected in all six soil samples at concentrations ranging from 40 to 110 mg/kg.
• Lead was detected in five of the six soil samples at concentrations ranging from 4.5 to 300 mg/kg. Soil generated in the vicinity of HA-17 would very likely be characterized as California hazardous waste if excavated for off-site disposal.
• Zinc was detected in all six soil samples at concentrations ranging from 28 to 2,900 mg/kg. However, soil would very likely be characterized as non-hazardous waste if excavated for off-site disposal.
• Additional metals detected at concentrations greater than laboratory reporting limits and below their respective commercial/industrial ESLs included antimony, barium, beryllium, cobalt, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, and vanadium.
Groundwater TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO were detected in one boring (HA-12) at concentrations of 2,300 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and 16,000 µg/L, respectively. No commercial/industrial ESL exists for these constituents. In addition, select VOCs were detected in groundwater samples collected from boring location HA-12 at concentrations greater than laboratory reporting limits but below commercial/industrial vapor intrusion ESLs.
Asbestos, Lead, and PCB Sampling and Analysis In addition to the Phase I and Phase II ESAs, asbestos, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) sampling and analysis were conducted in April 2022 by Sol Environmental.53 At the time of the sampling, the site consisted of an entry gate/guard shack, a site administrative building, a stand-alone island, concrete dock, a storage/maintenance building, and two separate terminals (denoted as A and B in the report). Samples were collected and tested for asbestos, PCBs, and lead from accessible areas, including the interiors, exteriors, and roofs. Asbestos was identified in Terminals A and B and the administrative building. In addition, lead-based paint was identified in Terminals A and B. All PCB samples resulted in concentrations below regulated and reportable levels.
3.9.2 Discussion
3.9.2.1 Routine Hazardous Materials Use
Construction Project construction would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking. Such transport, use, and disposal must comply with applicable requirements and regulations, such as the regulations set forth by the City, EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and Bay 53 Sol Environmental. 2022. Executive Summary Letter Report, Evaluation – Asbestos, Lead, and PCBs, Sampling and Analysis, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, CA. Final. 22-428. Walnut Creek, CA. Prepared for US Terminal Court Owner, LLC.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-38 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Although solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would be transported, used, and disposed of during the construction phase, these materials, which would be handled on a temporary basis, are typically used in construction projects and would not represent the routine transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Any spills or releases involving these materials would be expected to be small, localized, and cleaned up as they occur. Therefore, project construction would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction, and this impact would be less than significant.
Operation Because of the nature of R&D uses, the possibility exists for hazards related to the handling of hazardous materials. Any R&D tenant who handles hazardous materials would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations for qualifying hazardous materials, seek consultation with SMCEH, and apply for applicable permits for any regulated substances that may pose a threat to public health and safety or the environment because of their highly toxic, flammable, or explosive nature. Tenants must comply with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, principles prescribed by the U.S. Department of Health Services) to ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. In addition, registration of the hazardous materials through the SMCEH Hazardous Material Business Plan Program would be required to ensure safe and responsible handling of those qualifying materials. In addition, the City requires building spaces to be designed to handle intended office and R&D uses through the use of sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the City’s Fire Code (City Municipal Code Section 15.24010, which adopts the California Fire Code by reference, along with additional local amendments). Compliance with State and local regulations would ensure that buildings would be equipped with safety devices, including sprinklers and alarms, to minimize potential impacts from the presence of hazardous materials. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for completed structures, the City would require a final inspection from the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) to ensure that all building systems were in conformance with the City Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association requirements. The proposed project would also involve operation of a day-care center with an outdoor play area. The day-care center would be located in a building that would be separate from the proposed R&D uses. Hazardous materials used during operation of the day-care center would consist of common maintenance materials, including cleansers, solvents, and paints. These materials would be handled and stored in small quantities, and releases would most likely be small and cleaned up soon after they occur. Landscape maintenance on the project site would require the use of a wide variety of commercial products that are formulated with hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, cleaners and degreasers, solvents, paints, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, pesticides/herbicides). Such materials are considered common and are unlikely to be stored or used in large quantities. Any spills involving these materials would be small and localized and cleaned up as they occur. Finally, compliance with Caltrans regulations would ensure that all necessary safety precautions would be taken during the transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the proposed project.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-39 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Mandatory compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment during operation, and this impact would be less than significant.
3.9.2.2 Upset and Accident Conditions Involving Hazardous Materials As previously discussed, site-specific Phase I and Phase II ESAs were conducted for the project site. According to the Phase II ESA, soil conditions are not expected to affect future redevelopment, and the soils are not likely to be characterized as hazardous waste, with a limited exception in the vicinity of boring HA-17. Also, the Phase II ESA noted that arsenic concentrations are above background concentrations. Furthermore, groundwater sampling results indicated a potential vapor intrusion risk in the vicinity of boring HA-12, located in the area of the former fueling station. Analytical results did not indicate that historical releases were affecting the soil or groundwater related to an on-site pipeline. Based on these findings, the Phase II ESA included the following recommendations, which would be incorporated as part of the proposed project prior to and during construction activities:
• If future occupiable structures are proposed in the vicinity of soil boring HA-12,54 additional subsurface soil vapor and groundwater characterization and potential vapor intrusion mitigation measures could be required. As shown in Figure 2-4, the lobby to the I131N A building would be in the area of HA-12 and subject to mitigation requirements.
• Dewatering activities would be required to comply with the applicable publicly owned treatment works and NPDES permit requirements and include treatment measures, given the affected groundwater conditions identified in the vicinity of boring HA-12. Groundwater impacts appear to be limited to the area around boring HA-12 and were not considered a risk with respect to off-site migration.
• A Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HASP), to outline soil handling procedures, should be implemented during construction. According to the Phase II ESA, if excavation and/or grading activities are to be performed in the vicinity of soil boring HA-17, further site-specific health and safety measures would be required.
• Sampling of soil generated and stockpiled for off-site disposal may be required for future waste profiling.
• SMCEH must be notified during any proposed change in land use or removal of soil and groundwater within or near the former USTs located at the northern end of the site. Asbestos, lead, and PCB sampling and analysis were conducted on-site in April 2022. Asbestos was identified in Terminals A and B and the administrative building. Lead-based paint was identified in Terminals A and B. Based on these findings, the asbestos, lead, and PCB sampling and analysis included the following recommendations, which would be incorporated as part of the proposed project prior to demolition activities:
54 Soil boring HA-12 was advanced to 5 feet below ground surface in the northernmost extent of the site, at the approximate location (and/or downgradient) of former USTs.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-40 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Asbestos and Lead
• Because of the size of and complexity of the facility, a complete walkthrough of all areas should be conducted by parties/subcontractors bidding on demolition/renovation services to properly identify all materials and associated quantities.
• Preparation and implementation of asbestos and lead management plans to address the asbestos and lead materials identified by the inspection process.
• Removal and abatement efforts shall be performed in accordance with a site-specific specification for work to address asbestos and lead.
• Post-abatement inspection and air clearance sampling shall be performed to measure the efficacy of the abatement and decontamination effort.
Asbestos
• The removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs [greater than 1 percent asbestos]) shall be performed in accordance with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1529, Asbestos in Construction Standard. Waste disposal and notification requirements shall be performed in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Toxic Substances. Control Act (TSCA), and BAAQMD regulations.
• All personnel who may disturb and/or remove ACMs must be notified of the presence of the asbestos and must don appropriate personal protective disposable suits; must be trained in accordance with 8 CCR 1529, Asbestos in Construction; and must utilize respirators with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and other personal protective equipment (PPE).
• The removal and/or disturbance, disposal, and transport of ACM is regulated by and should adhere to applicable regulations of the EPA, BAAQMD, Cal/OSHA, OSHA, and DTSC.
• The removal and disposal of ACMs shall be performed by a Contractors State License Board– (CSLB-) licensed and Division of Occupational Safety and Health– (DOSH-) registered abatement contractor.
• The removal of more than 100 square feet of regulated ACM (RACM)/friable asbestos material requires BAAQMD notification. The disturbance of any amount of material requires a 24-hour Cal/OSHA notification. Both agencies should be notified as needed. With implementation of the Phase II ESA recommendations as well as the asbestos, lead, and PCB sampling and analysis recommendations, which would be enforced through existing legal requirements, uniformly applied development policies and standards, and/or project conditions of approval, potential impacts associated with upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
3.9.2.3 Exposure to Schools The proposed project would provide a day-care center. There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The closest school is the All-Souls Catholic School at 479 Miller Avenue in South San Francisco, approximately 0.77 mile northwest of the project site. No impact associated with hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing school would occur.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-41 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.9.2.4 Cortese List Sites According to the Phase I ESA, a CREC was identified, associated with a former fueling facility in the northern portion of the site. The former fueling facility was also identified by the Phase I ESA as a Cortese List site. As mentioned, SMCEH issued a case closure letter for the site in 2014; however, hydrocarbon-affected soil and groundwater were allowed to remain on-site. It was noted in the Phase I ESA that proposed future redevelopment, a change in land use, or the removal of soil and/or groundwater from the site would require notification of SMCEH. As noted under Section 3.9.2.2, Upset
and Accident Conditions Involving Hazardous Materials, soil in the vicinity of boring HA-17 and groundwater/soil vapor in the vicinity of boring HA-12 has the potential to expose construction personnel and the surrounding environment to contaminated media. However, with implementation of the Phase II ESA recommendations summarized in Section 3.9.2.2, Upset and Accident Conditions
Involving Hazardous Materials, potential impacts associated with exposure to contaminated media from a site on the Cortese List would be less than significant.
3.9.2.5 Airport Hazards The SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) requires all residential development within Area A, which is the entirety of San Mateo County, to provide real estate disclosures. Within Area B, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is responsible for reviewing proposed land use policy actions, including new general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, plan amendments, rezoning proposals, and land development proposals. As such, development could expose people residing or working in the area to a safety hazard or excessive noise because of proximity to SFO. The project site is within Airport Influence Area B of the SFO ALUCP and required to comply with policies and actions concerning interior noise levels and maximum building heights, as included in the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, because the proposed project is within Area B, consultation with the C/CAG and FAA would be required prior to project construction. This includes determining the need to file form 7460-I, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA, which is for any project that would exceed FAA notification heights, as shown on ALUCP Exhibit IV-10, and complying with the FAA aeronautical study findings. With the 7460-I filing, the FAA then undertakes an aeronautical study for the project and issues a “determination of no hazard” or a “determination of hazard.” A determination of hazard is made when a project would cause an obstruction to air navigation, resulting in a substantial aeronautical impact. The project would, therefore, require a consistency determination with the ALUCP to comply with FAA regulations regarding height. The project applicant would be required to receive a determination of no hazard to air navigation as a condition of approval for a building permit for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3.9.2.6 Impairment of Emergency Response or Emergency Evacuation Plans The proposed project would not include any permanent changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the project site or surrounding area. During construction, it is possible that construction activity could affect emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other roadway obstructions that could impede emergency access on-site. However, compliance with City requirements regarding circulation and access during construction would minimize potential impacts associated with emergency response times.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-42 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would represent a small percentage of overall daily and peak-hour traffic on roadways and freeways surrounding the project site; the increase in project-generated vehicle trips would not introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles traveling near the project site. The proposed project would not include features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities, and emergency services vehicles would continue to have access to all facilities throughout the city. In addition, dedicated access to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided via Terminal Court and the Shaw Road connection and would allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings through the proposed roadway network within the project site. Moreover, the project site would include 20- to 26-foot-wide fire lanes around the perimeter of the site, providing access to each building, as well as the I131N parking garage. Furthermore, R&D tenants who handle hazardous materials would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations, including a Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan coordinated with SMCEH and SSFFD. Adherence to the aforementioned regulations and plans would ensure that any response and evacuation in the event of an emergency would not be impaired. As such, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
3.9.2.7 Wildland Fires The project site is in a densely developed portion of South San Francisco; it is not in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a local, State, or federal responsibility area. Moreover, the area surrounding the project site generally lacks the features that normally elevate wildland fire risks (e.g., dry vegetation, steep hills). Because the project site is in a densely developed area of the city and not within or near an FHSZ or VHFHSZ (and away from wildlands), and because the proposed project would comply with all policies and regulation in the General Plan related to wildfire, this impact would be less than significant.
3.9.2.8 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative geographic context for hazards and hazardous materials consists of the project site and nearby properties in the immediate vicinity. In general, only projects occurring in the immediate vicinity to the project are considered because of the limited potential impact area associated with a release of hazardous materials into the environment. Reasonably foreseeable projects in the project’s surroundings could result in construction impacts related to the routine transport, disposal, or handling of hazardous materials; intermittent use and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, and fuels; and transport of affected soil to and from sites. However, hazardous waste generated during construction of any project would be collected, properly characterized for disposal, and transported in compliance with all applicable regulations. In addition, affected sites under development would undergo remediation with oversight from applicable State and local agencies, effectively reducing the amount of contaminants found in the cumulative project area. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, State, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. For each of the reasonably foreseeable projects under consideration, various project-specific measures, such as those identified for the proposed project, would be
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-43 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
implemented as a condition of development approval to mitigate risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. For these reasons, the project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative hazard or hazardous materials impact. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would
not be significant.
3.9.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. No construction, or media disturbance, would occur as a result of redesignation, and thus, no potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur. An environmental review would occur prior to future redevelopment, and environmental conditions would be addressed as they are identified. Hazardous waste generated during construction would be properly characterized and transported in compliance with all applicable regulations. Affected sites with the potential to affect future projects within these parcels would undergo remediation with oversight from applicable State and local agencies. Because the off-site redesignation parcels are adjacent to the project analyzed above, similar considerations would be made with respect to the location of sensitive receptors, such as schools, and airports; emergency response and wildfire hazards would also be considered. Impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-44 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site;
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect floodflows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.10.1 Setting The project site is within the Colma Creek watershed and the larger San Francisco Bay watershed.55,56 The San Francisco Bay watershed includes areas surrounding San Francisco Bay, which drain into San Francisco Bay. The State Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB monitor water quality in the Bay Area. These agencies oversee implementation of NPDES stormwater discharge permits. The SWRCB has implemented a NPDES Construction General Permit for the State of California (Order 2022-0057-DWQ). Dischargers whose projects disturb 1 or more 55 Givler, R.W., J.M. Sowers, and P. Vorster. 2006. Creek & Watershed Map of Daly City and Vicinity. Oakland Museum of California, Oakland, CA, 1:25,800 scale. 56 Esri. 2023. Watershed Boundary Dataset HUC 10s. Available: https://icf-eandp.maps.arcgis.com/home/ webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1. Accessed: October 12, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-45 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. Furthermore, the Construction General Permit requires a SWPPP to be prepared prior to commencement of construction. A navigable slough57 that drains into San Bruno Canal is south of the project site. Colma Creek is approximately 0.27 mile north of the project site and north of the off-site redesignation parcels. Several sections of Colma Creek are restrained by concrete flood control walls and raised above street level. Both Colma Creek and San Bruno Canal flow to Lower San Francisco Bay, which is approximately 1 mile east of the project site. There are no surface waters at the project site. Colma Creek is impaired for trash. Lower San Francisco Bay is impaired for chlordane; dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); dieldrin; dioxin compounds; furan compounds; invasive species; mercury; PCBs, including dioxin-like PCBs; and trash.58 The City participates in the San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and is required to implement low-impact development (LID) BMPs under NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, Order No. Order R2-2022-0018, adopted May 11, 2022. This NPDES permit is also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Provision C.3 of the MRP is directly applicable to the project. This provision allows permittees to include appropriate source-control, site-design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development as well as redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from both new development and redevelopment projects. This goal is to be accomplished primarily through implementation of LID techniques. LID practices include source-control BMPs, site-design BMPs, and stormwater treatment BMPs on-site or at a joint stormwater treatment facility. Storm drainage infrastructure on the project site consists of multiple discharge points. The site is split into three major sections and one minor section, each with a discharge point into the slough south of the site. The sections are separated by the two existing buildings on the project site. East of the project site, water is conveyed through 12-inch reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs) and discharged directly into the slough through a 15-inch RCP. Runoff is received predominantly in the central section, which collects stormwater from north of the buildings and the area between the buildings. Storm drainage infrastructure in the central section increases from 15- to 18-inch diameters as the system nears the outfall and discharges directly into the slough. Stormwater west of the project site sheet flows to catch basins and discharges directly into the slough through a 12-inch RCP. A small area in the northwest corner of the site collects stormwater through three catch basins and conveys runoff through 12-inch RCPs in the northeast direction, then discharges directly into the slough. The existing 18-inch outfall pipes are planned to be upgraded to 42-inch RCPs.59
57 The navigable slough is a remnant tidal channel that cuts through a commercial district in the city of South San Francisco. The slough is connected to San Francisco Bay. (ESA. 2019. Navigable Slough Flood Management Study,
Prepared for County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and City of San Bruno. Available: https://oneshoreline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Navigable-Slough-Flood-Management-Study.pdf. Accessed: April 12, 2023). 58 California State Water Resources Control Board. 2022. California 2020–2022 Integrated Report. EPA approved May 11, 2022. Available: https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 6cca2a3a1815465599201266373cbb7b. Accessed: October 13, 2023. 59 Ware, Malcomb. 2023. Stormwater Drainage Description T131.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-46 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
The project site is within the Westside Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a Very Low Priority Area, per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.60 The South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan established a goal for the area that would ensure a sustainable, high-quality, reliable water supply at a fair price through local groundwater management for beneficial uses.61 The City is part of the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, which is a voluntary groundwater management plan. Groundwater is expected to be encountered as shallow as approximately 1 foot bgs.62 Actual groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally with variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. The navigable slough experiences daily tidal exchanges. High tidal levels may result in water overtopping the banks.63 Portions of the project site are within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone, Zone AE, which has a base flood elevation of 10 feet, as shown in Figure 3.10-1. However, other portions of the project site are outside of the 100-year flood zone and within FEMA Zone X (shaded), which are areas subject to inundation by a moderate flood event (i.e., 0.2 percent annual chance).64
3.10.2 Discussion
3.10.2.1 Water Quality Construction of the project would involve ground-disturbing activities, such as demolition and excavation. Construction activities have the potential to result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants, which could degrade water quality if not properly controlled. Sources of pollution associated with construction include chemical substances from construction materials as well as hazardous or toxic materials, such as fuels. As described in Section 3.9, the project would be subject to State and federal hazardous material laws and regulations, which would minimize the risk of affecting the quality of surface water and groundwater. More than 1 acre of soil would be affected by the project; therefore, the project would be subject to the Construction General Permit. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the MRP. Erosion control measures are required in the Construction General Permit and the MRP. These requirements include preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that contains BMPs. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify potential sources of sediment and other pollutants and specify BMPs to ensure that potential adverse erosion, siltation, and contamination impacts do not occur during construction activities. Implementation of a SWPPP with BMPs would control erosion and protect water from potential contaminants in stormwater runoff from the construction site. BMPs may include damp street sweeping; appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas; temporary cover for disturbed surfaces; and sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for stock piles, or other BMPs to trap sediments. Such BMPs would help to protect surface water and groundwater quality. Construction impacts would be less than significant. 60 California Department of Water Resources. 2020. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Available: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/. Accessed: October 12, 2023. 61 WRIME. 2012. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. July. 62 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California. File No. 0204962-001. May. 63 Schaff & Wheeler. 2022. Terminal 131 Sea-Level Rise Design Considerations Memorandum. November 21. 64 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, FIRM Panel 06081C0043F. Available: https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb 51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd Accessed: October 13, 2023.
Figure 3.10-1
FEMA Flood Zones
\\
P
D
C
C
I
T
R
D
S
G
I
S
0
1
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
C
i
t
y
_
o
f
_
S
o
u
t
h
_
S
a
n
_
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
\
1
0
4
6
6
8
_
0
_
1
_
1
S
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
_
1
3
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
D
o
c
\
H
y
d
r
o
\
3
.
1
0
_
1
_
F
E
M
A
.
a
p
r
x
;
U
s
e
r
:
5
8
3
0
3
;
D
a
t
e
:
1
0
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
0 500250
Feet
Project Site
Navigable Slough
FEMA Flood Zones
AE (100-Year Flood Zone)
X (0.2% Annual Chance of Flood)
Colma
Tiburon
Alameda
Pacifica
Millbrae
BerkeleySausalito
Daly City
Burlingame
San Francisco
South San Francisco
[N 1:5,000 Source: ESRI, FEMA
Colma C
r
e
e
k
[this page left blank intentionally]
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-47 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Pollutants in stormwater runoff from urban development, such as the project, have the potential to violate water quality standards if the types and amounts are not adequately reduced. Stormwater runoff from the types of urban uses that would be facilitated by project approval is regulated under the MRP. Project design plans include the installation of bioretention ponds and Silva Cell units to provide LID treatment on the project site. The storm drain would use LID areas as well as oversized underground pipes to treat, help store water, and control flows prior to discharge to the adjacent slough. The applicant would be required to submit the SMCWPPP checklist to the City to show compliance with NPDES regional permit requirements. BMPs included in site designs and plans for the project would be reviewed by the City’s engineering staff to ensure appropriateness and adequate design capacity prior to permit issuance. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has incorporated requirements in the MRP to protect water quality and approved the SMCWPPP, which is in compliance with the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. The City’s review and permitting process would ensure that the permit’s waste discharge requirements would not be violated by the project. For these reasons, the project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation, including standards and requirements regarding surface water and groundwater quality. Operational impacts would be less than significant.
3.10.2.2 Groundwater Supply and Recharge Construction could require dewatering of groundwater due to the shallow groundwater table. Groundwater is expected to be encountered as shallow as approximately 1 foot bgs.65 The proposed project would excavate from approximately 3 to 7 feet bgs. In the event that groundwater is encountered during construction, dewatering would be conducted on a one-time, temporary basis during the construction phase. It would not result in a significant impact on groundwater recharge or depletion of groundwater supplies. Construction-related dewatering activities, including handling/discharging water, monitoring, and reporting, would comply with the Construction General Permit and RWQCB dewatering requirements. Accordingly, impacts on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge during project construction would be less than significant. The proposed project would increase the pervious surface area by approximately 18 percent. The increase in pervious surface area would increase infiltration and recharge of the underlying aquifer. It would also reduce the amount of precipitation running into storm sewers or nearby surface waters. In addition, native and/or adapted vegetation and other landscape features, including trees, would provide opportunities for improved groundwater infiltration. Landscaped spaces would allow for an increase in groundwater recharge. New vegetation zones would slow water, allowing water to percolate into the ground, thereby providing increased benefits related to groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge because it would not increase groundwater demand or decrease the size of groundwater recharge areas. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not utilize groundwater supplies. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The project’s impact would be less than significant.
65 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, 131 Terminal Court, South San Francisco, California. File No. 0204962-001. May.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-48 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.10.2.3 Drainage and Flooding Project-related earth-disturbing activities such as grading and stockpiling could result in short-term water quality impacts associated with soil erosion and subsequent sediment transport. Sediment transport to local drainage facilities could result in reduced stormflow capacity and localized ponding or flooding during storm events. During construction, stormwater drainage patterns could be temporarily altered. However, the proposed project would implement BMPs, as required in the project SWPPP, to minimize the potential for erosion or siltation in nearby storm drains and temporary changes in drainage patterns during construction. During construction, erosion control measures would be implemented, as required by the SWPPP. Construction BMPs, such as sediment basins and traps, filter berms, and diversion berms, would capture and infiltrate small amounts of sheet flow such that off-site runoff from the construction site would not increase, ensuring that drainage patterns would not be significantly altered. Erosion and stormwater control measures, such as silt fences, staked straw wattles, or geofabric, as required by the Construction General Permit, would also limit site runoff during construction and would not alter stormwater drainage patterns. BMPs would be implemented to control construction site runoff and minimize the amount of water from entering a disturbed area as well as reduce the discharge of pollution to the storm drain system. In addition, construction equipment would be placed appropriately around the site to minimize impeding or redirecting floodflows. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, project construction would not result in an exceedance of drainage system capacities, and the associated impact would be less than significant. For the majority of the project site, storm drain lines would outfall into the adjacent slough. Oversized underground pipes would treat and control flows prior to discharge to the slough. On the lower portions of the site, smaller areas would drain to the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system within Terminal Court. On-site storm drain improvements would include the installation of bioretention ponds, flow-through planters, and Silva Cell units to provide LID treatment on the project site and convey water to storage pipes. Water would be released at the designed flow rate. The proposed stormwater pipes would be between 6 and 12 inches in diameter. New connections would connect to an existing 12-inch storm drain main in Terminal Court. The site would be segmented into nine drainage management areas (DMAs) to collect, treat, store, and discharge stormwater runoff. Storage pipes would connect to existing outfalls and ultimately discharge to the slough. Implementation of the project would alter existing drainage patterns on the site with the construction of new buildings; however, stormwater flows would ultimately flow to existing stormwater drains. In addition, the proposed project would increase the amount of pervious surface. Landscaped areas would include a mix of native (i.e., minimum of 80 percent) and adapted vegetation with a low water demand. Upon project buildout, 659 trees would be provided within the courtyard areas, at the surface parking lot, and along the roadways. Landscaped and vegetated areas would provide stormwater treatment and manage stormwater runoff. Overall, the amount of stormwater that would be discharged with implementation of the project would decrease compared to existing conditions. The project would include stormwater treatment controls, in compliance with the requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP. The City owns and maintains the storm drainage infrastructure within public rights-of-way. These facilities discharge to San Mateo County flood control facilities. To comply with FEMA requirements and combat future sea-level rise and flooding, the site would be raised to at least 13 feet; structures
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-49 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
would be designed with first-floor elevations of 14 feet. Fill would be placed to raise existing grades and allow structures to meet the natural grade; as a result, structures would be outside of the floodplain. A flood-proofing certificate would be submitted to the City. The site would file for a Letter of Map Revision-Based on Fill (LOMR-F) and would not be required to pay flood insurance.66 Through compliance with State and local regulations, as well as implementation of BMPs, the project would not contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, provide additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect floodflows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3.10.2.4 Pollutant Release Due to Project Inundation The project site is not subject to flooding from tsunami or seiche. The project site is not within a tsunami inundation zone.67 Conditions with the project would be similar to existing conditions and would not increase the potential for site inundation. Seiche can occur in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. There are no large bodies of fresh water, such as reservoirs or lakes, in the project vicinity. Although San Francisco Bay is a large and open body of water, there is no immediate risk of seiche. Large waves, both sea and swell, generated in the Pacific Ocean undergo considerable refraction and diffraction upon passing through the Golden Gate, resulting in greatly reduced heights by the time they reach the project site. Therefore, there is no risk of seiche that would affect the project site. Portions of the project site are located within a FEMA 100-year flood zone.68 However, to reduce the risk of a pollutant release associated with a flood hazard, the project would comply with the requirements of local water quality programs and associated municipal stormwater NPDES permits as well as municipal separate storm sewer system and MRP permits to manage flood risks and water quality. Conformance with these requirements would ensure that any risk of a release of pollutants due to inundation associated with a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone would be minimized. Furthermore, water quality control and drainage features, such as bioretention basins and Silva Cell units, would reduce pollutant releases and control flows. Oversized underground pipes would treat and control flows prior to discharge to the adjacent slough. The project site would not release pollutants due to inundation associated with a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. The impact would be less than significant.
3.10.2.5 Conflict or Obstruct a Water Resource Management Plan Project construction and operation would comply with local, State, and federal regulations, including the NPDES Construction General Permit, Basin Plan, MRP, and City and San Mateo County Municipal Codes. Commonly practiced BMPs such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, and/or sandbag dikes, as required by these regulations, would be implemented to control construction site runoff and reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm drain systems from stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff. As part of compliance with permit requirements, such as SWPPP requirements, implementation of water quality control measures and BMPs would ensure that water quality 66 Schaff & Wheeler. 2022. Terminal 131 Sea-Level Rise Design Considerations Memorandum. November 21. 67 California Department of Conservation. 2022. Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County. Produced by the California Geological Survey and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services. Mapped at multiple scales. 68 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, FIRM Panel 06081C0043F. Available: https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb 51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd Accessed: October 13, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-50 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
standards would be achieved, including the water quality objectives that protect designated beneficial uses of surface and groundwater, as defined in the Basin Plan. Construction runoff would also have to be in compliance with the appropriate water quality objectives for the region. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires stormwater discharges to not contain pollutants that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. Therefore, the project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Groundwater dewatering is anticipated during project construction. However, dewatering would be conducted on a temporary basis during the construction phase and would not result in a significant impact on groundwater recharge or result in depletion of groundwater supplies. Groundwater would not be used during construction activities. Compared to existing conditions, there would be no change in the volume of groundwater use. Landscaping and pervious areas throughout the project site would allow groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would not obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. In addition, the project would comply with City General Plan policies, which require the protection of groundwater resources, as required by a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. This impact would be less
than significant.
3.10.2.6 Cumulative Impacts As evaluated above, no new significant impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and Specific Plan Addendum, no new cumulative impacts would occur. However, new cumulative impacts could occur when combined with cumulative development not evaluated in the General Plan EIR or the Specific Plan Addendum. Future development projects would be required to go through environmental and regulatory review and comply with the City’s LID measures, Construction General Plan, and SWPPP requirements and have a site-specific investigation performed, which would provide design recommendations to reduce the project-related impacts. In addition, future projects would also be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions, City Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance requirements, as well as State and regional regulations governing water quality. For these reasons, the proposed project in combination with future cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative hydrology and water quality impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.10.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan and an associated zone change from MIH to BTP-H for the off-site redesignation parcels. The purpose of the off-site redesignation is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing,
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-51 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. The project proposes to redesignate five adjacent off-site parcels from MIH to BTP-H to bring them into conformance with the proposed zoning on the project site. The off-site redesignation parcels are within the Colma Creek watershed and the larger San Francisco Bay watershed as well as the Westside Groundwater Basin. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, future development (including redevelopment of existing developed sites) that disturbs 1 acre or more of soil must obtain permit coverage under the Construction General Permit. A SWPPP, as required by the Construction General Permit, must describe site erosion and sediment controls, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. The General Plan Update and City Municipal Code also include policies and regulations to protect water quality and groundwater resources. Therefore, rezoning to BTP-H would not have the potential to result in future development that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. BTP-H uses would incorporate LID measures to treat stormwater, consistent with other future development uses in the area. Future uses developed within the BTP-H zone would also maximize infiltration and rainwater retention and minimize impacts on groundwater recharge, as required by the General Plan Update, City Municipal Code, and City Zoning Ordinance. Off-site redesignation parcels would also comply with mandatory NPDES permit requirements related to managing stormwater flows and discharges. Similar to the project site, portions of the off-site redesignation parcels are located within a FEMA 100-year flood zone. Future uses developed within the BTP-H zone would be subject to City engineer approval of all drainage plans, ensuring that the rate or amount of surface runoff would not result in flooding and that stormwater drainage systems would not be exceeded. Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the off-site redesignation parcels would be less than significant. No further evaluation in an EIR is required.
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.11.1 Setting The city of South San Francisco is organized as several geographic areas, referred to as planning sub-
areas, including the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, as identified in the General Plan adopted in October 2022. The project site and the off-site redesignation parcels are located in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, an approximately 400-acre area in the central southern portion of the city between U.S. 101 and
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-52 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
South Spruce Avenue, adjacent to the Downtown Sub-Area. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area comprises largely industrial, business, food processing, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. The General Plan’s Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. According to the General Plan, the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area aims to preserve business and industrial uses while strengthening its economic base, which includes a large number of small businesses and a high share of area jobs, by retaining a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses. The Lindenville Specific Plan, adopted in September 2023, establishes the planning framework for the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. Under the Specific Plan, both the project site and off-site redesignation parcels are designated as MIH, which allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. Figure 2-2 illustrates the existing land use designations for the project site, the off-site redesignation parcels, and the surrounding area under the Lindenville Specific Plan. The project site and off-site redesignation parcels are designated in the City Zoning Code as MIH. As established in the City Zoning Code, the maximum building height allowed under the existing MIH zoning designation is 65 feet. The base maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) under the MIH zoning designation is 0.4, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 2.0, for all permitted uses. However, R&D facilities under this zoning designation may have a maximum allowed FAR of 0.5, provided they follow the requirements of the City Community Benefits Program, as outlined in Chapter 20.395 of the City Municipal Code. In addition, as required under the MIH designation, truck docks, loading areas, and service areas must be located at the rear or interior side of buildings and must be screened so that they are not visible from surrounding public streets, including highways. Figure 2-3 illustrates the existing zoning designations for the project site, the off-site redesignation parcels, and the surrounding area. Surrounding land uses include industrial and commercial uses. Specifically, Terminal Court and a large Park N’ Fly surface parking lot are north of the project site, a large surface parking lot and Bayshore Freeway are adjacent to the eastern portion of the project site, a navigable slough that feeds into San Bruno Canal is south of the project site, and several mixed industrial and commercial buildings and San Mateo Avenue are west of the project site. In addition, the project site is approximately 1 mile west of San Francisco Bay and 0.30 mile west of a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail that runs along San Bruno Canal. The southern part of the project site also includes a portion of the shoreline band jurisdiction of the BCDC adjacent to the navigable slough. The project site is also approximately 1 mile northwest of SFO.
3.11.2 Discussion
3.11.2.1 Divide an Established Community The project site comprises one parcel at 131 Terminal Court in South San Francisco (refer to Figure 2-1) and is zoned MIH under the City General Plan and Zoning Code. Surrounding land uses include industrial and commercial uses and open space (described above); there are no residential land uses around the proejct site. The project would replace the existing Golden Gate Produce Terminal, which consists of two warehouse buildings, a smaller administrative building, open-air structures, and surface parking, with new R&D uses, amenity space, and multi-story parking. Therefore, the project would not change the nature of the land uses or physically divide an established community. The impact would be
less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-53 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.11.2.2 Conflict with a Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for
the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect As described above, the project site is currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Lindenville Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. The project proposes a General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code amendment to redesignate the site as BTP-H. The BTP-H land use designation allows for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan describes the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. As established in the City Zoning Code, under the BTP-H zoning designation, the maximum surface area covered by structures (i.e., lot coverage) is limited to 60 percent, with a minimum of 15 percent of the site made up of landscaping. The base maximum permitted FAR under the BTP-H zoning designation is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 2.0, for uses such as R&D facilities or development meeting specific TDM, off-site improvement, or design standards. In addition, the zoning ordinance provides specific exceptions to FAR limitations for projects under a Community Benefits Program (see City Municipal Code Chapter 20.395). As currently written, City Zoning Code Section 20.040.009.A.4., Excluded from Floor Area in
Calculating FAR, states that active ground-floor uses in a new mixed-use or nonresidential development east of 101 and in the T4C, T4M, and T5C zoning districts can be excluded from FAR calculations, provided that the nonresidential uses are active and open to the general public. Excluded uses from FAR calculations in these zoning districts include, but are not limited to, childcare facilities, personal services, retail establishments, full-service or limited restaurants, and similar active uses. The proposed project would amend City Zoning Code Section 20.040.009.A.4 to add BTP-H zoning districts within the Lindenville Planning Sub-area to the covered zoning districts so that the proposed day-care center would be excluded from FAR calculations. With this amendment, the proposed project would be within the allowable FAR for the BTP-H zoning designation. The proposed project would construct approximately 1.7 million square feet of new R&D and amenity space across seven buildings, resulting in a project FAR of 2.0, consistent with the requirements of the BTP-H zoning designation but with specific exceptions. The project is located within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area as well as SFO Land Use Compatibility Plan Zone 3. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area aims to preserve small businesses and industrial uses while strengthening its economic base by retaining a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses. To support development and use in this area, the General Plan includes goals and policies that encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. Relevant goals and policies from the Specific Plan for the proposed project include the those listed below.
Goal LU-3: The City supports businesses through City programs and the retention of a core area of light industrial and service uses that provide jobs for South San Francisco residents.
Policy LU-3.3: Minimize Land Use Compatibility Conflicts. Minimize land use compatibility conflicts that discourage attraction and retention of production, distribution, and service and repair businesses in areas zoned for industrial use.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-54 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Policy LU-3.4: Buffer Residential Neighborhoods from Industrial Uses. Buffer heavy and light industrial uses, such as general services, light manufacturing, and storage uses, from residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-3.6: Encourage Lot Assembly. Encourage lot assembly to allow businesses to grow and expand in Lindenville.
Policy LU-5.2: Golden Gate Produce Terminal and Park ‘N Fly Sites. Encourage parcel assemblage of the Park ‘N Fly site (160 Produce Avenue) and the Golden Gate Produce Terminal site (131 Terminal Court) and encourage developers to create a master plan and appropriate environmental analysis for office and R&D uses on the site.
Policy LU-6.2: Open Space Benefits. Require nonresidential developers to provide accessible open space in exchange for additional building height allowance.
Goal DD-3: New developments in Lindenville provide healthy places for people to live and work by mitigating potential noise, air quality, and odor impacts from industrial land uses, U.S. 101 and Interstate 380, and aircraft.
Policy DD-3.1: Land Use Compatibility. Require screening, air filtration, and sound abatement to reduce visual and sensory impacts from nearby generators of noise, odor, and sound.
Policy DD-3.2: Open Space Access. Provide ample opportunity for residents to live active lifestyles by requiring dedications of new public park and open spaces and private common spaces.
Policy DD-3.4: Ecological Design. Design new development to support a healthy and biodiverse environment through landscape and planting designs, reductions in impervious coverage, green roofs, and other site and building design strategies. Support design strategies at grade, on the podium, and on the roof.
Policy DD-3.5: Sustainable Development. Decarbonize new developments with low embodied carbon materials, renewable energy generation, and resource efficient design (energy, water, and waste) through development standards and incentives for higher performing new developments.
Policy DD-3.6: Future Conditions. Ensure that new and/or substantial construction is planned and designed to accommodate future conditions for the life of the project through implementation of the flood plain/sea-level rise overlay (see Chapter 20.180).
Policy OS-1.1: Create a Connected Network. Establish a network of parks and open spaces that provide spaces for active and passive recreation for residents, workers, and other district populations with a neighborhood park, linear park, mini parks and plazas, and greenways and trails.
Policy OS-4.1: Promote Different Open Space Types. Leverage a mix of public and privately owned publicly accessible (POPA) open space to provide sufficient open space for the district.
Goal MOB-1: Multi-modal travel options are readily available and offer equal levels of comfort.
Policy MOB 2.1: Connect Bicyclists and Pedestrians to Lindenville. Complete low-stress bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Centennial Way Trail, Bay Trail, and the Colma Creek Greenbelt.
Policy MOB 3.3: Prioritize Pedestrian and Bike Access. Require property owners to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access in site designs in the mixed-use and office corridors and de-emphasize vehicle access using design, wayfinding, and building amenities.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-55 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Policy I-3.4: Sustainable Development Practices. Encourage sustainable development practices for development projects to reduce the demands on the water supply and sanitary sewers systems, including the use of recycled water indoors, installation of localized blackwater systems, and incorporation of regenerative and high-efficiency landscape practices that reduce water and energy use, along with increased building efficiency beyond City standards. The project’s goals and components associated with developing 1.7 million square feet of R&D uses and amenities, including new landscaping, sustainability features, and pedestrian access routes, support the above-listed Specific Plan goals and policies, as discussed throughout this initial study checklist. The Specific Plan does not impose density or height standards separate from those found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. By increasing the density of development and use at the site, the project further supports the sub-area goals. The project site is approximately 1 mile northwest of SFO and partially within Airport Influence Area B of the ALUCP, which includes noise, height/airspace protection, safety, and overflight compatibility criteria and policies, as outlined in the SFO ALUCP. Please refer to Section 3.9, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, and 3.13, Noise and Vibration, for additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with the SFO ALUCP. The project would require a determination of consistency with the ALUCP. The project would also be required to comply with FAA regulations for height. This includes determining the need to file form 7460-I, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. With the 7460-I filing, the FAA undertakes an aeronautical study of the project and determines whether to issue a determination of no hazard or a determination of hazard. The project would require an ALUCP consistency determination to comply with FAA regulations for height. The project applicant would be required to receive a determination of no hazard to air navigation as a condition of approval for a building permit for the proposed project. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Project Description, the southern portion of the project site is adjacent to the navigable slough; it contains a portion of the 100-foot shoreline band within the jurisdiction of the BCDC. Because a portion of the project site is within 100 feet of the navigable slough, project-related work within the 100-foot shoreline band would be subject to the McAteer-Petris Act, thereby requiring a permit from BCDC. The McAteer-Petris Act allows BCDC to issue or deny permits for work that would place fill, extract material, or change the use of any land, water, or structure within the area of its jurisdiction, in conformance with San Francisco Bay Plan policies and McAteer-Petris Act requirements. The permit would be reviewed and approved by BCDC to ensure that the proposed project, as well as all project-related activities within the shoreline band, would be consistent with the requirements of the San Francisco Bay Plan and McAteer-Petris Act. The project applicant would be required to secure a BCDC permit as a condition of approval for the proposed project’s building permit. Furthermore, the Active South City Plan, General Plan, and Lindenville Specific Plan identify a Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail crossing at U.S. 101 to connect the Bay Trail with Shaw Road, with an eventual extension to the Centennial Way Trail via a grade-separated Caltrain crossing. A shared Class I/IV bicycle and pedestrian pathway, providing access to the navigable slough along the southern and western portions of the project site, would be constructed as part of the development proposed adjacent to the project site at 101 Terminal Court project. Although no bicycle and pedestrian pathway is proposed along the southern and western portions of the project site as part of the proposed project, the proposed project would not preclude completion of the pathway as part of the 101 Terminal Court project, or the bicycle and pedestrian bridge across U.S. 101, consistent with General Plan Policy MOB-2.1.3 and as identified in the Active South City Plan. Overall, the project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-56 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.11.2.3 Cumulative Impacts As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development, no new cumulative impacts would occur. Development under the proposed project would occur in an urbanized area. Similarly, most cumulative development under the General Plan, including reasonably foreseeable projects, would take place in urbanized areas as infill development and not require significant land use changes that would create land use conflicts, nor would they divide existing communities. In addition, future development would be subject to the land use plans, policies, and regulations of the applicable jurisdiction. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.11.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The purpose of the off-site redesignation parcels is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. As addressed under Section 3.11.2.2, by redesignating these off-site parcels, the project supports Specific Plan Policy LU-5.2, which encourages parcel assemblage for the Park ‘N Fly site (160 Produce Avenue) and the Golden Gate Produce Terminal site (131 Terminal Court) and creation of a master plan for office and R&D development on the combined parcels. Future land uses could be R&D and would be consistent with the project site overall; that is, future development proposals would be reviewed for consistency with applicable plans, thereby avoiding future land use inconsistencies. Overall, land use impacts related to the amendments for these five parcels would be similar to those identified for the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant. Further review in an EIR is not required.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-57 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.12 Mineral Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
12. MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3.12.1 Setting There are no known mineral resources within South San Francisco, according to the California Department of Conservation.69 The California Geological Survey Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors map classifies as the project site as MRZ-1, an area “where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present” or “where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.”70
3.12.2 Discussion There are no known mineral resources within the project vicinity. The project site is categorized as MRZ-1; it is not located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impacts on mineral resources of statewide or regional significance would occur. In addition, neither the project site nor the surrounding area is identified as an area containing mineral resources of local significance; therefore, there would be no impact on mineral resources.
3.12.2.1 Cumulative Impacts The project would have no impact on mineral resources. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum, no new cumulative impacts would occur. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to mineral resources. and there would be no additional cumulative impacts.
69 California Geological Survey. 2022. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. Accessed: June 3, 2024. 70 California Geological Survey. 1987. Special Report 146 – Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Part II: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas, South San Francisco Bay Production – Consumption Region. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_146-2/SR_146-2_Text.pdf. Accessed: June 3, 2024.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-58 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.12.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan and an associated zone change from MIH to BTP-H for the off-site redesignation parcels. The purpose of the off-site redesignation is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. As discussed in the Specific Plan Addendum and General Plan EIR, which are incorporated by reference, there would be no impacts on mineral resources because such resources do not occur within the Specific Plan area. Furthermore, there are no mineral resource recovery sites within the boundaries of South San Francisco. Redesignation of the five off-site parcels from MIH to BTP-H would not change this conclusion because the same lands would be disturbed, lands that are not currently used for any mining or other mineral extraction activities. Therefore, there would be no
impact on mineral resources as a result of the off-site redesignation parcels. No further evaluation in an EIR is required.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-59 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.13 Noise
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
13. NOISE:
Would the project: a) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regarding noise impacts related to public airports or private air strips, the closest airport to the project site is SFO, which is approximately 1 mile to the southeast. Portions of the project site fall within the 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) noise contour for this airport, according to the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. No portion of the project site is within the 70 or 75 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contours.71 Land uses proposed under the project include commercial, office, and/or R&D land uses. The 2012 ALUCP designates commercial and industrial/production land uses as compatible with all airport-related noise levels, according to Table IV-1, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria, of the ALUCP document.72 Although residential land uses are designated as conditionally compatible within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, no residential land uses are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the land use restrictions for the 65 dBA noise contour in the ALUCP. Impacts related to aircraft noise would be less than significant, and this topic will not be addressed in the EIR. Construction vehicles and equipment used during project construction would generate noise and vibration. In addition, during operation of the project, project-generated vehicle trips would increase traffic and associated traffic noise along nearby roadway segments, and mechanical equipment and project emergency generators (during testing) would result in operational noise. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would have the potential to result in significant impacts with respect to checklist questions 13(a) and 13(b). These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.
71 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November. Redwood City, CA. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: March 10, 2023. 72 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-60 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.14 Population and Housing
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3.14.1 Setting
3.14.1.1 Population and Housing South San Francisco had a population of 63,484 as of 202273 and a total of 22,495 housing units as of 2021.74 According to the General Plan EIR, the population is expected to increase to approximately 107,203 and 38,959 housing units by 2040. The City’s Housing Element reports that the city needs to increase housing by 3,956 units in order to meet California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) estimates. The project site is currently occupied by the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, a produce market, and associated surface parking. The project site consists of two warehouse buildings and a smaller administrative building, totaling approximately 126,750 square feet. In addition, the site is also developed with approximately 116,572 square feet of open-air structures, including loading docks and trash compactors, associated with operations at the Golden Gate Produce Terminal. There is currently no housing on the project site.
3.14.1.2 Employment The city and adjacent areas contain regional employment centers and major thoroughfares. The city’s economy supports jobs and businesses in areas such as biomedical technologies, digital technologies, manufacturing, distribution, hospitality, and household-serving retail services. According to the General Plan EIR, there are 95,260 jobs in the city, a number that is projected to
73 U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. QuickFacts. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/southsanfrancisco citycalifornia. Accessed: June 12, 2024. 74 FirstCarbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064. .
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-61 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
increase to 137,557 by 2040.75 The Specific Plan Addendum accounted for future development at the project site under the MIH land use designation for the Specific Plan area, which would see 11,775 new residents and 23,366 employees upon build-out of the Specific Plan. The project site is currently occupied by the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, a produce market that employs approximately 475 people.
3.14.2 Discussion The project is located within the Lindenville Planning-Sub Area, which comprises mostly industrial, business, food processing, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. The project site is currently zoned MIH, which allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. As mentioned above, the existing use on site is a produce market; no housing is currently on the site. The project would consist of demolishing industrial and operational uses on a 17.67-acre site at the Golden Gate Produce Terminal. In its place, the proposed project would construct approximately 1.7 million square feet of R&D uses and amenities within seven buildings, ranging from one to six stories, along with two parking garages, additional surface parking, and landscaping. The project would require General Plan, Specific Plan and zoning code amendments to change the existing land use and zoning designation from MIH and to BTP-H and allow development of the R&D campus.
3.14.2.1 Construction Construction-related job opportunities due to the proposed project are not expected to result in any substantial population growth in the area. The work requirements of most construction projects are highly specialized so that construction workers remain at a job site only for the time frame during which their specific skills are needed. In addition, the construction workers would very likely be supplied from the region’s labor pool and would not be likely to relocate. As such, significant housing or population impacts would not result from construction of the project. Therefore, there would be no construction-related population growth impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.14.2.2 Operation
Infrastructure The proposed project would be located on a developed parcel (i.e., warehouse buildings, administrative building, open-air structures) and be considered in-fill redevelopment. The project site is served by existing water, wastewater, stormwater, natural gas, electric, telecommunications, and waste and recycling services. New on-site facilities would be connected to new services through the installation of new localized connections. An expansion or an increase in capacity for off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. In addition, the proposed project would not include the extension of area roadways. Because the proposed infrastructure would be sized to meet the needs of the proposed project, it would not lead to unplanned indirect population growth or the need for additional housing beyond that expected to be generated by the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant. 75 FirstCarbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-62 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Employees The proposed project would be located on an existing developed site in an urbanized area; it would not include the construction of any housing units. The proposed project would construct approximately 1.7 million square feet of R&D and amenity space. Because no housing is proposed as part of the project, there would be no direct population and housing impacts on the city. Operation of the proposed project would generate indirect population growth because the new R&D campus would increase employment by approximately 3,787 (3,778 R&D employees and nine day-care center employees), a net increase of 3,312. Because the project would redesignate the project site from MIH to BTP-H, the project would result in additional employees under the BTP-H designation compared with the number of employees assumed in the General Plan and Specific Plan. Under the MIH designation, using an employee generation rate of one employee per 741 square foot of MIH space,76 the project site could result in 1,039 employees.77 As mentioned previously, the project would generate 3,778 employees, resulting in 2,739 additional employees not accounted for in the General Plan or Specific Plan projections. Employment impacts are largely social and economic impacts, and CEQA establishes that social and economic impacts are not considered significant impacts unless they contribute to, or are caused by, physical impacts on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21080). Thus, the proposed project’s additional employment growth not evaluated or considered in the General Plan and Specific Plan is not, in and of itself, a significant impact on the environment. As discussed above, project employees would not directly create significant impacts related to population or housing demand. Other potential impacts that could result from the new employees on the project site, including impacts related to vehicle travel, are evaluated throughout this Initial Study and the EIR. Refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.5, Noise, and Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR and Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning, Section 3.15, Public Services, and Section 3.19,
Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study. Although housing is not proposed, the increase in the number of employees in the area could generate a need for housing. The proposed project would result in a demand for 938 housing units,78 given the project’s 3,312 additional employees. However, according to the City’s Housing Element, 3,581 housing units79 are currently in the pipeline and expected to be built by 2040, which would accommodate the increased growth in employment in the city. Not all employees would live within South San Francisco. Other nearby jurisdictions have adopted Housing Elements that plan for housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which is each jurisdiction’s share of the region’s housing needs. This regional housing need is determined by the State using population projections, vacancy rate, overcrowding, and other factors. As a result, with the City and other jurisdictions planning for growth in their Housing Elements, this level of additional employees 76 As part of the analysis conducted for the General Plan EIR, it was assumed that the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) that the project site falls in would be approximately 73.50 acres (or 3,201,660 square feet) and result in approximately 4,138 employees. Using these numbers, the TAZ would result in an employee generation rate of one employee per 741 square feet (i.e., 3,201,660 square feet/4,138 employee = one employee/741 square feet). 77 The project site is approximately 17.67 acres or approximately 769,705.2 square feet. Assuming the employee generation rate of one employee/741 square feet, the project site under the MIH designation could result in approximately 1,039 employees (i.e., 769,705.2 square feet/741 square feet = 1,039 employees). 78 Based on the city’s jobs-to-housing ratio of 3.53 jobs per housing unit. 79 City of South San Francisco. 2023. South San Francisco Housing Element 2023–2031. Available: https://shapessf.com/the-housing-element/. Accessed: June 12, 2024.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-63 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
would not result in additional physical impacts from unplanned growth. The proposed project would also very likely employ existing workers within the region because the existing city and county workforce already has workers who support R&D. In addition, the proposed project would be required to pay the commercial linkage fee under Chapter 8.69 of the City Municipal Code, which would contribute to the development of affordable housing in other locations within the city. Therefore, the proposed project would not lead to unplanned housing or employment growth. The population impacts would be less than significant.
Displacement No displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, would occur with the project because no housing exists on-site, nor is housing proposed. No impact would occur.
3.14.2.3 Cumulative Impacts As evaluated above, impacts from the project would be less than significant. Development under the project would occur in an urbanized area. Similarly, most cumulative development under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and reasonably foreseeable projects would take place in urbanized areas as infill development and not result in cumulative impacts on population and housing because the projects would be considered planned growth projected by the City in anticipation of future development. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan Addendum, no new cumulative impacts would occur. In addition, the project would also be an infill project. It would connect to existing infrastructure that already serves the project site and would not need to extend infrastructure that could result in unplanned growth. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to population and housing. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.14.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. The purpose of the off-site redesignation parcels is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels and would not result in any direct impacts related to population and housing. However, future development of the off-site parcels would result in population and housing impacts similar to those of the proposed project and would generate a similar number of employees. The employees could be accommodated through the housing growth envisioned in the City’s General Plan and Housing Element and other
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-64 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
similar plans in nearby jurisdictions, consistent with regional growth projections. In addition, future development at the off-site redesignation parcels would be subject to project-specific CEQA review, which would ensure that population and housing impacts from future employees would be adequately evaluated and mitigated, as appropriate. Overall, population impacts related to the amendments for the five parcels would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. Therefore, population and housing impacts associated with the off-site redesignation parcels would be less than significant. No further evaluation in the EIR is required.
3.15 Public Services
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
15. PUBLIC SERVICES:
Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
• Fire protection?
• Police protection?
• Schools?
• Parks?
• Other public facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.15.1 Setting The SSFFD provides fire suppression and prevention services, emergency medical services, and urban and marine search-and-rescue services. Other responsibilities involve hazardous materials, public education, and disaster preparedness. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station 62, located at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 0.5 mile to the northeast. The staff includes 87 full-time-equivalent firefighters and emergency medical employees and 4.68 hourly and contract employees. The SSFFD aims to have the first apparatus vehicle on the scene of an emergency within 7 minutes and 30 seconds of a call, which includes 4 minutes for travel time.80 The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) provides police protection services throughout the city, with the exception of unincorporated county areas, which are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The SSFPD has 84 sworn and 35 civilian positions and is divided into two 80 FirstCarbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-65 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
divisions: Operations and Services.81 The SSFPD operates out of a single station at 1 Chestnut Avenue. This station, constructed in late 2021, also serves as a backup Emergency Operations Center. A substation at 329 Miller Avenue, with limited hours of operation, provides space for officers to write reports and take breaks. As of 2023, SSFPD’s response time to Priority 1 (emergency) calls averaged 6 minutes and 21 seconds; nonemergency Priority 2 and 3 calls averaged 18 minutes and 23 seconds and 41 minutes and 36 seconds, respectively.82 The SSFPD considers these response times acceptable. There currently is no standard response time, nor is there any obligated standard to measure against. With a population of about 63,484 in the city as of 2022, the SSFPD has a current service ratio of 1.3 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.83 The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) provides kindergarten through 12th-grade education to South San Francisco residents and portions of Daly City and San Bruno. The SSFUSD operates nine elementary schools (K–5), four middle schools (6–8), three high schools (two for 9–12 students and one continuation high school), and one adult education program.84 Total enrollment in the SSFUSD is approximately 8,000, with a student-to-teacher ratio of 20:1.85 In addition, the SSFUSD facilitates a child development program that offers a full-day licensed preschool at three sites within the city. Out of the nine public elementary schools within the SSFUSD, five are located within the city limits. However, South San Francisco residents can apply to transfer to another school located outside of the city limits but within the SSFUSD. The South San Francisco Public Library provides free public library and literacy services at three facilities: the Main Library, the Grand Avenue Branch Library, and the Community Learning Center. The community learning center is nearest to the project site, at approximately 1 mile northwest. In addition, a new library would be incorporated as part of the City’s proposed Community Civic Campus. This would include a science and technology center, children’s and teen learning area, and adult learning area.86
3.15.2 Discussion
3.15.2.1 Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Emergency Medical Services Policy SA-22.7 requires the City to coordinate with the SSFFD and SSFPD to ensure that public services will be able to accommodate the growth associated with new development in Lindenville. In addition, all development projects in South San Francisco are required to pay a public safety impact fee, in accordance with Chapter 8.75 of the City Municipal Code, to ensure funding for adequate 81 City of South San Francisco. 2024. Divisions. Available: https://www.ssf.net/departments/police/divisions. Accessed: June 3, 2024. 82 Personal communication between Kate Thompson, Elizabeth Kennan, and Scott Campbell of SSFPD. November 3, 2023. 83 63,848 residents/1,000 = 63.484; 83 sworn officers/63.484 = approximately 1.3. 84 South San Francisco Unified School District. 2024. Schools. Available: https://www.ssfusd.org/. Accessed: June 3, 2024. 85 U.S. News & World Report. 2024. South San Francisco Unified School District. Available: https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/california/districts/south-san-francisco-unified-100024#:~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20Unified%20School%20District%20contains%2017%20schools%20and%208%2C182%20students. Accessed: June 12, 2024. 86 City of South San Francisco. 2021. Community Civic Campus—Library, Parks & Recreation and Community Theater/Council Chamber. Available: http://www.communityciviccampus.net/index.php/projects/library-parks-rec. Accessed: November 8, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-66 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
personnel, equipment, and facilities and meet the increased demand generated by new development. Any new development would be subject to payment of the public safety impact fee and reviewed by the City for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan and the City Municipal Code; therefore, physical effects on the environment from the construction of new or expanded public service facilities would not be expected to occur. The proposed project would construct new R&D and amenity buildings on the project site, which is already developed and currently being served by the SSFFD and SSFPD. As described in Chapter 2,
Project Description, dedicated access to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided via Terminal Court and the Shaw Road connection. The proposed project would allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings through the proposed roadway network within the project site. The project site would include 20- to 26-foot-wide fire lanes around the perimeter of the project site, providing access to each building. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable fire and safety codes required in the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to the public safety impact fee, which supports public services personnel, equipment, and facility maintenance, to offset potential impacts from additional demand generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
3.15.2.2 Public Schools The General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that public schools keep pace with the additional demand generated by new development. Specifically, Policy SA-22.7 requires the City to coordinate with the SSFUSD to ensure that public services will be able to accommodate the growth associated with new development in Lindenville. In addition, all development projects in South San Francisco are required to pay the school impact fee, in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 50, to provide funds to SSFUSD. Any new development would be subject to payment of the school impact fee and reviewed by the City for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan and the City Municipal Code; therefore, physical effects on the environment from the construction of new or expanded public school facilities would not be expected to occur. Because the proposed project would include the development of R&D/amenity uses, not residential uses, it would not directly result in the generation of new students who would enroll in the SSFUSD. However, the proposed project would be subject to SB 50 school impact fees, as established by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. These fees support facility maintenance to offset potential impacts from additional use. Section 65996 of the State Government Code notes that payment of the school impact fees established by SB 50, which may be required by any State or local agency, is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development. In addition, as part of the proposed project, an approximately 4,050-square-foot day-care center would be provided on-site. The day-care center would include an approximately 4,950-square-foot outdoor play area that would be protected with fencing; the surrounding landscaping and trees would be minimal. The proposed day-care center would accommodate up to 50 children and be open to employees of the proposed project as well as the public. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
3.15.2.3 Libraries The General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that library facilities keep pace with new development. These policies include Policy LU-1.4, which requires the City to maintain and expand public facilities that support the community, including libraries, particularly in neighborhoods that lack such resources, and Policy ECS-7.1, which requires the City to ensure that adequate library
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-67 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
services, staffing levels, and facilities are maintained for all residents. In addition, Policy ECS-7.7 requires the City to develop customer service surveys, which will be used to evaluate library programs and events. In addition, all development projects in South San Francisco are required to pay a library impact fee, in accordance with Chapter 8.74 of the City Municipal Code, to provide funds for the City’s library services and facilities. Any new development would be subject to payment of the library impact fee and reviewed by the City for compliance with the policies and actions of the General Plan and the City Municipal Code; therefore, physical effects on the environment from the construction of new or expanded library facilities would not be expected to occur. In addition, development would be required to pay library impact fees, in accordance with Chapter 8.74 of the City Municipal Code; therefore, the project would not result in significant adverse effects related to library facilities. The impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.
3.15.2.4 Cumulative Impacts As evaluated above, impacts from the project would be less than significant. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum, no new cumulative impacts would occur. Development facilitated by the General Plan or Specific Plan would be required to pay library impact fees, in accordance with Chapter 8.74 of the City Municipal Code, and participate in ongoing coordination with SSFFD and SSFPD; therefore, future development would not result in significant adverse effects related to library facilities. The proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to public service impacts. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.15.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. Similar to the proposed project, future development under the BTP-H designation could include life sciences and R&D office space, which would most likely have impacts on public services similar to those of the proposed project. As such, future development at the off-site redesignation parcels would be subject to a SSFUSD development impact fee, based on the square footage of each project. In addition, future development at the parcels would be subject to payment of the public safety impact fee and library impact fee. Furthermore, future development at the off-site redesignation parcels would be required to comply with the same policies and actions provided in the General Plan and City Municipal Code, as described in the sections above, which would ensure that public service providers would be able to accommodate growth generated by any new development at the off-site redesignation parcels. Therefore, public services impacts associated with the off-site redesignation parcels would be less than significant. No further evaluation in the EIR is required.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-68 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.16 Recreation
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
16. RECREATION:
Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.16.1 Setting As of 2022, 316 acres of developed parklands, open space, and joint use facilities were within the city limits. This includes improved parkland (131 acres), open space (108 acres), and joint use facilities (77 acres). The City retains joint use agreements with public agencies like the SSFUSD, PG&E, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to allow residents access to additional improved parkland and open space. The City also maintains an additional 30 to 40 acres for rights-of-way or other open space. The City maintains 10 indoor recreational facilities and numerous outdoor facilities for sports, social gatherings, camps, and classes. These indoor facilities include the Community Civic Campus (opens 2023), Municipal Services Building, Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, Roberta Cerri Teglia Center (formerly Magnolia Center), Orange Pool, Paradise Valley Recreation Center, Siebecker Center, Terrabay Gymnasium, Alice Peña Bulos Community Center (formerly Westborough Recreation Building), Westborough Preschool, and Community Learning Center, which is jointly operated with the library.87 The Quimby Act, a 1965 State law, allows local governments to impose a requirement for the dedication of land or the payment of in-lieu fees, or both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval for a tentative map or parcel map (see Government Code Section 66477 et seq.) The basic premise is that new development brings in more residents and creates a special impact on park and recreational resources. The Quimby Act also contains specific procedures for calculating, collecting, and spending in-lieu fees; it also requires the return of fees when the fees have not been committed to park and recreational facilities. These fees are distinguished from the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). The Quimby Act also sets a maximum community per capita standard for park and recreational facilities of 5 acres per 1,000 residents for which park and recreational land dedications and fees may be imposed under the act. The fees collected through the Quimby regulations offset developmental impacts by providing park and recreational facilities that will serve new residents. 87 FirstCarbon Solutions. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-69 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.16.2 Discussion The proposed project would include approximately 115,130 square feet of open space in the courtyards, which would be publicly accessible, providing space for outdoor work, recreation, and socializing through the use of seat walls, paved areas, turf, and shade structures. In addition, outdoor terraces would be incorporated on multiple levels of the proposed buildings for use by building tenants. Furthermore, development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to pay park and recreation impact fees in accordance with Chapter 8.67 of the City Municipal Code, as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse effects related to parks and recreational facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
3.16.2.1 Cumulative Impacts As evaluated above, impacts from the project would be less than significant. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum, no new cumulative impacts would occur. Future development would be required to pay park and recreation impact fees in accordance with Chapter 8.67 of the City Municipal Code, as discussed above, in addition to providing more open space per other City Municipal Code and Zoning Code requirements. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to recreational, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.16.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. Similar to the proposed project, future development under the BTP-H designation could include life sciences and R&D office space, which would most likely have recreational impacts similar to those of the proposed project. As such, future development at the off-site redesignation parcels would be subject to the payment of the park and recreation impact fee, in accordance with Chapter 8.67 of the City Municipal Code. In addition, future development at the parcels would very likely incorporate open space and/or amenity uses as part of the future projects’ designs, which would provide recreational opportunities for future employees and the public on-site. Furthermore, future development at the off-site redesignation parcels would be required to comply with the same policies and actions provided in the General Plan and City Municipal Code, as described in the sections above, which would ensure that parks and recreational facilities would be able to accommodate growth generated by any new development at the off-site redesignation parcels. Therefore, recreational impacts associated with the off-site redesignation parcels would be less
than significant. No further evaluation in the EIR is required.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-70 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.17 Transportation
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
17. TRANSPORTATION:
Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Vehicles used during project construction would generate vehicle trips. In addition, the approximately 1.7 million square feet of R&D and amenity uses would generate vehicle trips from project-generated employees during operational activities. Furthermore, the project design and the generation of vehicle trips could result in a conflict with an applicable circulation plan, policy, or regulation; result in inadequate emergency access; or substantially increase hazards due to design features. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would have the potential to result in significant impacts with respect to checklist questions 3.17(a), 3.17(b), 3.17 (c), and 3.17(d). These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-71 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project: e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
3.18.1 Setting Tribal cultural resources were originally identified as a distinct CEQA environmental category with adoption of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 in September 2014. For all projects that are subject to CEQA with a notice of preparation (NOP), notice of negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration received on or after July 1, 2015, AB 52 requires the lead agency on a proposed project to consult with the geographically affiliated California Native American tribes. The legislation creates a broad new category of environmental resources, tribal cultural resources, that must be considered under CEQA. AB 52 requires a lead agency to consider not only the resource’s scientific and historical value but also whether it is culturally important to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 defines tribal cultural resources as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the criteria of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) (CEQA Section 21074).
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-72 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
California SB 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3), established in September 2004, requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes prior to preparing or amending both general plans (as defined in California Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (as defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). The purpose of this consultation is to include California Native American tribes early in the planning process and allow for the identification and protection of cultural resources. This process also allows cultural resources to be considered during the broad-scale local and regional planning process rather than at a project level. SB 18 requires that local governments notify appropriate tribes, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan. Tribes then have 90 days from the receipt of notification to request consultation (Government Code Section 65352.3). Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a general plan or specific plan, local governments must refer the proposed action to the appropriate tribes, as identified by the NAHC, regardless of whether previous consultation has taken place. Local governments must allow a 45-day comment period (Government Code Section 65352) and provide notice of a public hearing to all tribes that filed a written request for such notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing (Government Code Section 65092). In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18, the NAHC was contacted on June 20, 2023, and asked to conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File and provide a list of California Native American tribes that have a cultural affiliation with the geographic area where the project site is located. On July 7, 2023, the NAHC indicated that the search of its Sacred Lands File was negative for sacred lands in the vicinity of the project site and provided a list of eight tribal representatives. On September 27, 2023, the City sent letters to the eight individuals identified by the NAHC. The letters included a brief description of the proposed project, the results of a literature record search, project location maps, and a request for comments, concerns, or knowledge regarding sacred lands or heritage sites in the project area. The following tribes were contacted:
• Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
• Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
• Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
• Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
• The Ohlone Indian Tribe
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band No requests for consultation were received from the Native American tribes. Appendix F contains the letter that was sent from the NAHC and a record of the City’s communication with Native American tribes.
3.18.2 Discussion The Archaeological Resources Study for the Infinite 131 Project was prepared by ICF to analyze potential project impacts. The following discussion is based on the technical report. The
Archaeological Resources Study for the Infinite 131 Project is confidential and not for public release because it contains the locations of archaeological sites. Distribution and access should be restricted to those with a need to know. In addition, development in the city, including the proposed project, would be required to comply with General Plan Policies ES-10.5, ES-11.1, and ES-11.3.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-73 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
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, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures; work may resume only when appropriate protections are in place and approved by the Economic and Community Development Department.
Policy ES-11.1, Identification of Tribal Cultural Resources. Encourage the identification, preservation, and protection of tribal cultural resources, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites, in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s) and ensure appropriate treatment of Native American and other human remains discovered during project construction.
Policy ES-11.3, Conduct Tribal Consultation during Development Review. Consult with local Native American tribes to identify, evaluate, and appropriately address tribal cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.
3.18.2.1 Impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources The potential exists for previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be encountered during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. As discussed above, to determine the sensitivity of the project site with respect to Native American resources, the NAHC and local Native American groups were consulted in accordance with AB 52, but no tribes responded. The records search conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) found that one Native American archaeological site was located within or adjacent to the project area, although subsequent testing suggests that this resource was incorrectly mapped and may not be within the project area. However, should archaeological deposits that qualify as tribal cultural resources be encountered during project excavation, any impacts on these potential unanticipated discoveries would be avoided through compliance with General Plan Policies ES-10.5 and ES-11.1. Based on the presumed incorrect mapping results and compliance with federal, State, and General Plan policies that protect tribal cultural resources, the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts on tribal cultural resources.
3.18.2.2 Cumulative Impacts With adherence to federal, State, and local laws and policies that protect tribal cultural resources, cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. As evaluated above, no new impacts have been identified for the project. Therefore, cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
3.18.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-74 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. Similar to the proposed project, future development under the BTP-H designation could include life sciences and R&D office space, which would most likely result in similar amounts and types of ground disturbing activities, and have similar impacts on tribal cultural resources as the proposed project. As such, future development under the off-site redesignation parcels would be subject to the same federal and State regulations protecting tribal cultural resources, including AB 52 consultation, as necessary. Furthermore, future development would be required to comply with the same policies in the General Plan, as described above for the proposed project, which would ensure that any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be avoided. Therefore, impacts associated with the off-site redesignation would be less than significant and no further evaluation in an EIR is required.
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-75 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.19.1 Setting
3.19.1.1 Water Supplies South San Francisco is served by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and located in Cal Water’s South San Francisco service area, which includes South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and Broadmoor. The Cal Water South San Francisco District utilizes both groundwater from the Westside Basin and imported surface water purchased from the SFPUC. An existing 12-inch public water main is located within Terminal Court.
3.19.1.2 Wastewater The City owns and maintains its sanitary sewer system and infrastructure within public rights-of-way. The collected wastewater is conveyed to the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) located adjacent to San Francisco Bay on Colma Creek. This facility provides secondary wastewater treatment for the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. During dry weather conditions, the WQCP has a peak flow capacity of 13 million gallons per day (mgd), which is increased to a peak capacity of 62 mgd during wet-weather conditions.88 It receives an average dry-weather flow of approximately 9 mgd; the average peak wet-weather flow can exceed 60 mgd.89 The plant last experienced flows that exceeded peak wet-weather capacity on December 31, 2022.90 An existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main runs underneath the navigable slough south of the project site.
3.19.1.3 Stormwater The City owns and maintains the storm drainage infrastructure within public rights-of-way. For the majority of the project site, storm drain lines would outfall into the adjacent slough. On the lower portions of the site, smaller areas would drain to the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system within Terminal Court, which contains an existing 12-inch storm drain main.
3.19.1.4 Electrical, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication Facilities PG&E provides both electricity and natural gas services to the city. As a California Public Utilities Commission–regulated public utility in the state of California, PG&E owns, operates, and maintains above- and belowground electric and natural gas facilities in the city, including substations, through public utility easements. The city is also served by both wired and wireless telecommunications from numerous providers, including AT&T, Comcast, Viasat, and T-Mobile.
88 Carollo Engineers. 2011. South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update. April. Available: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1330. Accessed: October 26, 2023. 89 City of South San Francisco. 2023. Water Quality Control Plant. Treatment Process. Available: https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/treatment-process. Accessed October 30, 2023. 90 City of South San Francisco 2023. Water Quality Control Plant. Public Notification. Available: https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/public-notification. Accessed October 30, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-76 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.19.1.5 Solid Waste The South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer provide solid waste disposal services citywide, including garbage and recycling services.91 The South San Francisco Scavenger Company transports all solid waste to the Blue Line Transfer facility at 500 East Jamie Court where solid waste is processed, treated, and transported to other disposal facilities. The Blue Line Transfer facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day.92 Any trash remaining after the usable materials have been separated at the transfer facility are transported to the Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill or the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. The project site would continue to be served by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer.
3.19.2 Discussion
3.19.2.1 Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Facilities
Water Facilities As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, on-site water system improvements would include the pipes, valves, fire hydrants, meters and submeters, and backflow preventers needed to serve the proposed uses. The proposed project would include an extension to the 12-inch public main within Terminal Court. The extension would loop around the site and provide connections to building laterals for domestic water and fire water, irrigation, and fire hydrant needs. The proposed project assumes a 4-inch private lateral for domestic water and an 8-inch pipe (minimum) for the private fire lateral would be required. The main points of connection for the water line would be the new 12-inch water main that would be implemented as part of development at 101 Terminal Court, adjacent to the project site, and the existing 8-inch public water main within Terminal Court. In addition, the proposed project would incorporate sustainability features to reduce water consumption, including ultraefficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures and low-water-demand native and/or adapted vegetation with efficient irrigation systems. Construction of the proposed water infrastructure improvements would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects, such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are part of the project description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this initial study and in the EIR. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities beyond the facilities already included in the project description and evaluated in this initial study and EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
91 South San Francisco Scavenger Company. n.d. About Us. Available: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/. Accessed: October 30, 2023. 92 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2023. Blue Line MRF and TS. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1598?siteID=3259. Accessed: October 30, 2023.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-77 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Wastewater Facilities Proposed sewer system improvements would include a new 18-inch sanitary sewer main through the southwest corner of the project site to a 21-inch main to support the proposed project. Proposed on-site sewer pipes would be between 4 and 18 inches in diameter and connect to the upsized sewer main beneath the navigable slough. In addition, the proposed project would incorporate sustainability features to reduce wastewater consumption, including ultraefficient WaterSense-labeled flush and flow fixtures. Construction of the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the project description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this initial study and in the EIR. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities beyond the facilities already included in the project description and evaluated in this initial study and EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Stormwater Facilities On-site storm drain improvements would include the installation of bioretention ponds, flow-through planters, and Silva Cell units to provide LID treatment on the project site. The proposed stormwater pipes would be between 6 and 12 inches in diameter. New connections would connect to an existing 12-inch storm drain main within Terminal Court. The proposed project would also be designed to conserve resources and protect water quality through the management of stormwater runoff using LID methods, where feasible. This approach would implement engineered controls to allow stormwater filtering, storage, and flood control. Bioretention basins, flow-through planters, Silva Cell units, and other site design features to manage stormwater runoff flows and reduce stormwater pollution would be located throughout the project site. Construction of the proposed stormwater infrastructure improvements would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the project description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this initial study and in the EIR. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities beyond the facilities already included in the project description and evaluated in this initial study and EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Electrical, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication Facilities The project proposes the installation of new connections for dry utility service. All electrical and telecommunication utilities would be connected to existing electrical and telecommunication utilities. The proposed project would not include any new connections for natural gas, which would not be used by the project. In addition, it would achieve, at a minimum, a LEED, version 4.1,
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-78 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
BD+C Core and Shell Gold rating as well as WELL v2 Core certification.93 Proposed sustainability measures would include an all-electric building design; on-site renewable energy in the form of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels; a high-performance building envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems; and EV charging infrastructure, all of which would reduce the project’s energy consumption. Construction of the proposed electrical and telecommunication infrastructure improvements would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the project description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this initial study and in the EIR. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical and telecommunication facilities beyond the facilities already included in the project description and evaluated in this initial study and EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
3.19.2.2 Water Supply A water supply assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed project by Cal Water to analyze potential project impacts. The following discussion is based on the WSA, which is included as Appendix O. After adjusting for existing water use at the site (i.e., 5.5 acre-feet per year [afy]), the incremental increase in water demand associated with the proposed project at full build-out and full occupancy is estimated to be 345 afy. However, in accordance with Cal Water’s Development Offset Program, the project sponsor would be required to pay a special facilities fee of $15,400 per acre-foot to offset the net water demand increase. This would be used to fund accelerated water supply projects and expanded customer conservation programs that would result in no net increase in water demand in Cal Water’s South San Francisco (SSF) District. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to offset its net demand increase, which would be calculated prior to establishing a new water service connection. The project would not be expected to result in a net increase in water demand in Cal Water’s SSF District. Regarding water supply availability, it is projected that available water supplies would be able to meet water demand under normal-year hydrologic conditions through 2045, inclusive of the proposed project. However, in drought periods, shortfalls of up to 53 percent would be possible if the “worst-case” supply scenario is realized (i.e., the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented as written). In response to anticipated future dry-year shortfalls, Cal Water has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) that systematically identifies ways in which the SSF District can reduce water demand during dry years. The overall reduction goals in the WSCP are established for six drought stages, with shortfalls ranging from 10 percent to more than 50 percent. Cal Water is also striving to increase the water supply portfolio for the SSF, Mid-Peninsula, and Bear Gulch Districts through (1) investment in water conservation, (2) participation in the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project and the Regional Water Recycling Project, and (3) 93 The WELL building standards are performance-based building standards for measuring and monitoring features within the built environment that may affect human health through air, water, light, and other concepts. The standards provide ways for buildings to be designed to improve human comfort and enhance health and wellness within the built environment.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-79 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
development of a regional water supply reliability study, using integrated resource planning practices to create a long-term supply reliability strategy through 2050 for Cal Water districts in the Bay Area. Therefore, the WSA concludes that, through supply augmentation and implementation of demand management measures to offset the proposed project’s estimated net new demand, consistent with Cal Water’s Development Offset Program, the proposed project would not affect water supply reliability within the SSF District. Based on currently available information and conservative estimates of projected demand, Cal Water expects to be able to meet all future demands within its existing SSF District service area, as well as the Mid-Peninsula and Bear Gulch Districts, inclusive of the proposed project, in normal hydrologic years. The shortfalls that are currently projected during dry years will be addressed through planned implementation of the SSF District WSCP. In addition, Cal Water and other regional agencies are pursuing development of additional water supplies to improve the regional water system and SSF District supply reliability. Therefore, project-related impacts on water supply would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
3.19.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Capacity The proposed project would increase wastewater demand within the project site due to the intensification of land uses. According to the project sponsor, the proposed project would generate 5,975 tons per year (4.47 million gallons per year, or 0.01 mgd) of wastewater. As stated above, during dry weather conditions, the WQCP has a peak flow capacity of 13 mgd of wastewater, which is increased to a peak capacity of 62 mgd during wet-weather conditions.94 With the proposed project’s increase in wastewater of 0.01 mgd, the WQCP would have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase. The project’s water conservation policies, as noted above in Section 3.19.2.1, Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Facilities, could also result in proportionate reductions in the project’s wastewater generation. Lastly, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s sewer capacity charge through its fee contribution, ensuring that wastewater treatment capacity would be maintained. Based on the above, project-related impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
3.19.2.4 Solid Waste The proposed project would increase solid waste generation within the project site from the intensification of land uses. Upon project completion, there would be approximately 3,787 employees on-site. Based on the solid waste generation rate identified by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for the city (5 pounds per capita per day for employees),95 the project’s employees would generate 18,935 pounds of solid waste per day (or 9.5 tons per day). This equates to approximately 2,480 tons of solid waste per year.96 According to the General Plan, the four landfills that serve the city have a combined remaining capacity of 43.43
94 Carollo Engineers. 2011. South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update. April. Available: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1330. Accessed: October 26, 2023. 95 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. Disposal Rate Calculator – South San Francisco. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator. Accessed: September 24, 2023. 96 9.5 tons per day × 261 working days per year = 2,480 tons per year.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-80 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
million cubic yards.97 Therefore, this capacity would be more than enough to accommodate the solid waste generated by the proposed project. In addition, State law requires the collection of trash in three separate streams: waste, mixed recycling, and compost, in accordance with the requirements of AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383. The City requires further separation of mixed recycling into paper, containers, and cardboard. The proposed project would comply with City requirements. Trash from the proposed buildings would be collected in five different streams, including waste, recyclables, and compostable materials. Recyclable materials would be further sorted into paper, container, and cardboard types of materials. The proposed project would have two central trash locations per building, for a total of four. The trash areas would be adjacent to the loading areas and connected to the service elevators. For construction and demolition, 100 percent of all inert solids (i.e., building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (i.e., all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the City Municipal Code. These requirements and regulations would reduce the amount of solid waste produced by construction and operation of the proposed project. Based on the above, project-related impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
3.19.2.5 Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for analysis of cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems is the service area of the utility provider and the cumulative projects. The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to wastewater treatment is the wastewater treatment facility service area. With regard to water facilities and storm drainage, the geographic context would be the city. The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to solid waste is the service areas of the landfills serving the project site. In addition, the geographic context for cumulative impacts related to electricity is PG&E’s service area in Northern California. The cumulative projects would be required to go through environmental and regulatory review and comply with the City’s regulations and policies regarding utility connections, water conservation, solid waste recycling, and energy conservation. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists at the WQCP and nearby landfills or provide mitigation. For these reasons, the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact on utilities and service systems. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
3.19.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan and an associated zone change from MIH to BTP-H for the off-site redesignation parcels. The purpose of the off-site redesignation is to ensure that future development is similar to and consistent with the development proposed as part of the project. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D 97 First Carbon Solutions. 2022. Final Program Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. State Clearinghouse Number 2021020064.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-81 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The BTP-H land use designation was created to encourage campus-like environments for offices, R&D facilities, and corporate headquarters. Future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would be required to demonstrate the availability of water suppliers to service the development, as required and applicable, in the form of will-serve letters or, for larger projects, preparation of a water supply assessment, per SB 610. If additional facilities are constructed, separate environmental analysis will be required. Future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would be located within the urban framework of the city and near existing wastewater infrastructure. General Plan Update policies and actions would ensure that the future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would continue to comply with State and federal regulatory requirements related to water and wastewater. As such, future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would not result in the need to construct or expand water or wastewater collection and treatment facilities. In accordance with City requirements, future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would 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. In addition, future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would not be expected to require or result in new or expanded electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities beyond those already planned. Therefore, impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities would be less than significant. In accordance with City requirements, future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would be required to connect to the municipal sewer system. The two wastewater treatment plants serving the city have a combined capacity of 23.3 mgd and currently have additional dry-weather capacity of approximately 14.6 mgd. The amount of wastewater generated by future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would be substantially less than the remaining capacity of the treatment plants. Therefore, although future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would result in an increase in the demand for wastewater collection and treatment, the wastewater collection systems and treatment plants would have sufficient capacity to support new this future development. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater collection and treatment would be less than significant. Future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would increase the generation of solid waste (both temporary construction and permanent operation waste), which could exceed State or local standards, exceed local infrastructure capacity, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. However, in accordance with City requirements, future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would be served by solid waste, recycling, and green waste services provided by the City’s franchise hauler (City Municipal Code Chapter 8.16). Furthermore, future development of the off-site redesignation parcels would be required to abide by and be consistent with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Health and Safety Code, CCR, California Public Resources Code, and City General Plan and Municipal Code. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. No further evaluation in an EIR is required.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-82 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.20 Wildfire
Environmental Issue Area
Further Evaluation Needed in EIR
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
20. WILDFIRE:
Would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slopes, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities, that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3.20.1 Setting South San Francisco is not in an SRA or a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) FHSZ. The city is identified as a non-VHFHSZ within an LRA and adjacent to land identified as a moderate to high FHSZ within an SRA at San Bruno Mountain State Park. Land identified as a high FHSZ within an SRA is approximately 0.75 mile south of San Bruno Mountain State Park. Although there is no very high, high, or moderate FHSZ within city limits, Sign Hill Park, in the northern part of the city between the Paradise Valley/Terrabay and Sign Hill sub-areas, is susceptible to wildfires.98 The park is approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides varying levels of emergency services in 36 of the California’s 58 counties through contracts with local governments, including the City. In addition, the SSFFD provides fire suppression and prevention services, emergency medical services, and urban and marine search-and-rescue services. Other responsibilities involve hazardous materials, public education, and disaster preparedness. The SSFFD has firefighters and paramedics in five different fire stations throughout the city. Personnel are dispatched to a variety of incidents, including structure fires, hazardous material incidents, medical calls, and traffic accidents. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station 62, located at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 0.5 mile to the northeast. For additional details regarding emergency service facilities, response areas, and response times, please see Section 3.15, Public
Services. 98 FirstCarbon Solutions. 2022. Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-83 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.20.2 Discussion The project site is not located in an FHSZ in an SRA or a VHFHSZ in an LRA. The project site and all surrounding areas are located within an LRA, which is not identified as a moderate, high, or very high FHSZ. The area surrounding the project site is generally developed; it lacks the features that normally elevate wildland fire risks (e.g., dry vegetation, steep hills). Because the project site is not located within or near an SRA or a VHFHSZ, and because the proposed project would comply with the South San Francisco Fire Code (Sections 15.24.101.1 and 15.24.5001.1 of the City Municipal Code) as well as architectural and developmental review requirements of the SSFFD, this impact would be less than significant.
3.20.2.1 Cumulative Impacts As evaluated above, impacts from the project would be less than significant. Therefore, when combined with the cumulative development evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan Addendum, no new cumulative impacts would occur. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with other development projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact related wildfire. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.20.3 Off-Site Redesignation Parcels The five off-site redesignation parcels are currently designated as MIH under the General Plan, Specific Plan, and City Zoning Code. However, they would be redesignated BTP-H, consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designation for the project site. The MIH designation currently allows for development of a wide range of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, service commercial, and storage and distribution uses. The redesignation would allow for high-density corporate headquarters, R&D facilities, and office uses. More specifically, the General Plan and Specific Plan describe the permitted uses for BTP-H as incubator research, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing, along with office and R&D uses. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail services, personal services, and grocery and hotel uses are also permitted under this designation. The proposed project would not include the construction of any new uses on the off-site redesignation parcels. Future R&D uses would be subject to the South San Francisco Fire Code (Sections 15.24.101.1 and 15.24.5001.1 of the City Municipal Code) and the architectural and developmental review requirements of the SSFFD. Implementation of the redesignation parcels would not result in additional wildfire impacts. Therefore, impacts would remain less than
significant.
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 3
Environmental Checklist
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 3-84 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The discussion of biological resources in Section 3.4, above, shows that, with adherence to project conditions of approval and mitigation, the proposed project would not significantly affect any habitats, plant or animal communities, or threatened or endangered species. The discussion of cultural resources in Section 3.5, above, shows that the proposed project may significantly affect historic resources and archaeological resources; this will be discussed further in the EIR. The discussion of tribal cultural resources in Section 3.18, above, shows that the proposed project would not significantly affect tribal cultural resources. The discussion of geology and soils in Section 3.7, above, shows that, with adherence to project conditions of approval and mitigation, the proposed project would not significantly affect paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The initial study checklist has addressed cumulative impacts under each environmental topic and determined that cumulative impacts related to biological resources and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. For all other topics, the initial study supports a determination that the proposed project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts. The EIR will address potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, related to air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. These topics, along with plans and policies, other CEQA topics, and alternatives, will be evaluated in the EIR.
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 4-1 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
Chapter 4 Report Preparation
4.1 Lead Agency
City of South San Francisco Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Billy Gross, Principal Planner
4.2 Consulting Team
4.2.1 ICF
ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Heidi Mekkelson, Project Director Devan Atteberry, Project Manager Kate Thompson, Deputy Project Manager Cory Matsui, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Darrin Trageser, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Jacqueline Mansoor, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Liz Foley, Noise Specialist Noah Schumaker, Noise Specialist Ross Wilming, Biologist Christine Cruiess, Historic Preservation Specialist Nicole Felicetti, Historic Preservation Specialist Megan Watson, Archaeologist Kirsten Chapman, Environmental Planner Patrick Maley, Environmental Planner Mario Barrera, Environmental Planner Jennifer Ostner, Environmental Planner Jennifer Andersen, Environmental Planner Victoria Chung, Environmental Planner Katrina Sukola, Hydrology and Water Quality Specialist Roscoe Escobar, GIS Specialist John Conley, Graphics Specialist John Mathias, Editor and Publications Specialist
City of South San Francisco
Chapter 4
Report Preparation
Infinite 131 Project
Initial Study Checklist 4-2 June 2024
ICF 104668.0.001.01
4.2.2 Fehr & Peers
Fehr & Peers 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Daniel Jacobson, Project Manager, Transportation Engineer/Planner Brian Lin, Transportation Engineer/Planner
4.3 Project Sponsor Team
US 131 Terminal Court Owner, LLC 101 California Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Steve Dunn, Senior Managing Director
Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill (SOM) One Maritime Plaza San Francisco, CA, 94111 Wendy Sitler Fernando Herrera Kayla Lim
4.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted
City of South San Francisco City Attorney’s Office 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Sky Woodruff, City Attorney Lindsay D’Andrea, Assistant City Attorney
City of San Bruno 567 El Camino Real San Bruno, CA 94066 Harry Yip, P.E., T.E., City Senior Civil Engineer Hae Won Ritchie, P.E., City Engineer Lori Liu, City Attorney
California Water Service, South San Francisco District 1720 North First Street San José, CA 95112 Michael Bolzowski, Senior Engineer